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
Gary Crough, thankyou for your interest and your (05:15:45) :
Taking some of your points from the top
“…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”)…”
I had noted that the reader appears to have a tall torso, however, the “table or alter” in front of him seemingly shields view of his feet, but I get your point about the relative stature of individuals 1 and 2, if the reader in this image is indeed Calvert. (I still think 1 and 2 are female). I might optimise the image contrast on the reader, and take another look.
“…The book says a there was a “wind (about 30 knots)” [~35 mph/56 kmh]… … we were on the port side of the Skate and as much to its lee as possible …”
Well, shelter from any wind of some of the celebrants is a good reason for some of them to be on the relatively dark port side of the conning tower, but as mentioned earlier, the light would be very diffuse, and various methods of contrast adjustment are available. I believe the published image is either incompetent, or, the contrast has been deliberately exaggerated to make it look like a grim scene, or it is a grim reconstruction.
Incidentally several individuals appear to be wearing relatively light gloves, and the reader might be bare left handed. One appears to be bare headed, and another maybe or lightly so.
“…about 30 of the crew formed ranks on either side of the table in 26-below-zero cold”…”
However, only ten such people are deployed in the image.
“…it was to difficult to read without some light so men held red flares on both sides of the alterlike table”…”
There is no evidence of this in the image, including no shadows behind the celebrants, and no apparent brightening of the mid-grey conning tower.
“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)
However, where is the deck in this image? In this image, Skate has not actually surfaced, with apparently only the conning tower having punched through the ice. The deck would be beneath 1 or 2 feet of ice! Why is there no one near the front of the conning tower? Three individuals are seen way to starboard of the vessel on the ice, fully exposed to alleged wind, and do not appear to be hooded.
There some other things about this image that are rather strange, but maybe this is enough for now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In an earlier post, you wrote in part:
“…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…”
I think, (as a professional engineer), that this is an exaggeration. Water is a good conductor of heat, (from below to the surface), and has been shown to be rather dynamic up there!
Have you followed the antics of the Catlin Expedition, and Pen Haddow’s earlier adventure? The latest trip suffered several problems including that on some days they made negative progress because inconveniently, the ice that they were trekking on was moving more rapidly towards their rear. (and they only got part-way to their destination; the NP)
Bob_FJ: I made up the part about “seconds”. In the trip the previous summer the captain used the periscope to survey a melt lake prior to completing a surface but the periscope proved useless in the winter. When they broke through the ice and then raised the periscope they could see nothing. A water film had frozen and made the periscope useless for wintertime use above water. That happens in seconds; instantly as far as the Captain could tell. Also, according to famous arctic explorer Vilohjalmur Stefansson (who the Captain met at Dartmonth where he taught) “In still air and tempatures at 30 below, the sea water will freeze 6 inches the 1st day, four more the second day and so on. In a week you’d have a foot and a half or so.”
You mention the sub is not completely surfaced. Normally the deck would be several feet above the ice (over 6 feet). In this case it looks to me that the deck is a foot or two above the ice … you can see a bit of the deck to the left of the tower. Thicker ice (and this was apparently the thickest they surfaced in) did not fall away from the sub but remained in slabs against the sub. The deck being only 2-3 feet above the ice would be consistent with the account in the book. If the deck is not above water no one is going to be leaving the sub.
As for the Catlin adventure … I think it is misguided. Clearly much more than they hoped to learn (and they learned only a fraction of what they hoped) could be obtained via any sub in a fraction of the time. In addition, more detailed information on ice thickness was obtained via a scientific fly-over that took place before the Catlin adventure ended.
At the time of the Skate adventure the “ice machine” (a modified version of the tool used by subs to record depth could detect “thin and thick ice” but to an accuracy of only a couple of feet … my bet is current subs can make measurements within inches??
Bob_FJ, could you take a look at my summary of Comdr. Calvert’s National Geographic article on the http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/17/quote-of-the-week-8-monbiot-looks-like-ive-boobed/ link? The original of the picture (I assume you’re talking about the OSU picture of the ceremony) is actually in COLOR, not B/W. The picture posted as OSU is a very poor copy.
In the National Geographic article, the torch in on individual’s hand (to the left as you look at the picture) is quite clear and very red.
Also, there are two other pictures from the ceremony. Both of them are in color and the lighting is better.
Comdr. Calvert did mention that they were in a storm. Since, as far as I can tell, he’d never been in a storm at the Pole before, he may have attributed less to the storm than correct. If you look at the NOAA artic picture for May 17th or so, they were having a storm then. Looked pretty dark and yet it was well after sunrise.
P.S. to Bob_FJ, the National Geographic article shows personnel in the tower (I think it’s called the “sail” but I’m no submariner, that seems to be what Comdr. Calvert is referring to), as well as all the way down to the ice. The personnel are putting up flags of the US, GB and Australia if I remember correctly, for the service. The picture is also in color. It may have been taken from the other side versus the side the ceremony was held on. The sub seems to be about as far “surfaced” as in any other picture we’ve seen.
Gary Crough, thanks for the link to the book! If it’s as good as the National Geographic article, it must be a gem.
Bottom line is, air temps -26 to -30 [F], March 17-25, 1959. Water temp 30 ABOVE [F]. Catlin expedition encountered air temp of -40 [F] in 2009. That twit that took a swim in July 2007 did so in 29 above [F] water.
Still no ice breakup as of May 27 per NOAA http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg yet we’ve got the “triple surfacing” picture from the 1980’s.
If water and air temps are the same, the differences have to be winds and currents, not global warming. Comdr. Calvert’s data must be referenced in the future any time we get the “ice free north pole” drivel.
DA. Freiberg: Thanks for the input … especially reference to a color photo. You are right about the flags. Sir Wilkins was born in Australia, did his famous feats (fly over Pole etc.) for GB and made his final home in the US.
Some final comments on conditions: This was the most difficult surfacing they did due to the small size of the lead and the thickness of the ice. Once outside Walt Whitman (arctic expert aboard) warned that they should not linger. The ice appeared to be on the move. (a big danger was having a lead close and capture the sub). So they did the ceremony … placed an American flag at the pole … and left.
Now back to the topic of this site: GW. The flag and the note left in a waterproof container are expected to end up on the shores of Greenland. That’s where the currents carried the ship Jeannette. The arctic ocean currents carry things southeast from the pole at 2-3 miles/day. What this implies to me is there is 2nd-year ice and maybe some 3rd year ice but not much older than that. All the arctic ice is on the move and will eventually leave the arctic and melt?
In the previous trip (summer) the Skate visited Alfa (a research station placed on an ice flow which was drifting with the currents. Alfa was about 300 miles southwest of the pole and how the Skate located this moving target is an interesting story.
Alfa was established in April 1957 “about 550 miles north of Barrow Alaska”. By August 1958 it was 900 miles NE of Barrow. The ice was to thin and weak to land planes in the summer so the sub was the only visitors the research team had seen in months. (They got mail & supplies via air drop) The flow was selected with hopes it would drift to the pole but that was not going to happen. In 2-3 years that flow was expected to reach Greenland … as does the ice at the pole itself.
Because of these currents it seems to me that the importance of “multi-year ice” is overstated. The arctic ocean is a big ice machine with water flowing in from the N Pacific, freezing and then melting as it moves to the N Atlantic. There are a couple of circular currents that may delay some ice but ice older than 3-4 years is rare??? Is that true? Anyway, once the ice reaches S Greenland in the summer it does not matter how old it is … it is going to melt.
DA. Freiberg
If you still have your NatGeo CD, would you see if you can find the July 1940 issue and skim through the article by Robert Bartlett on Greenland since 1898 and see if it is worth reading. I can’t find a copy locally and am not sure I want to spend the money to purchase it online. Can you read the articles on that CD without printing them out or is the technology so old that it doesn’t work on modern computers? If it’s a long article and is expensive to print, don’t go to any trouble–I just thought it might be interesting. Bartlett had a very long history of arctic exploration.
Gary Crough (05:51:41) : DA. Freiberg (07:40:58) & (07:57:25) :
Very interesting, and thanks!
I will try with considerable interest, when I have time, to dig-up the National Geographic article with its “better” photos etc…. my word, what a strange and interesting affair!
According to that great purveyor of truth; Onthefence, at the Guardian:
“…Ohio State University Libraries Exhibitions, [is] part of the Byrd Polar Research Center Archival Program. This archive collects material about Sir George Hubert Wilkins…”
It thus seems very strange that National Geographic has a better photographic record than the said devoted archive! Oh well, whatever is behind all this, it seems that I was correct in suggesting that the OSU-Byrd archival B & W photo of the ceremony, first posted by Onthefence at the Guardian, is, in a word; crap. (please advise if you disagree)
There are several things in our exchanges here that I still have problems with, and a simple example is that I do not believe it to be practical for the crew to assemble in numbers on the deck, covered in ice. (no such crew being visible in the ceremonial image, and the sensible {safest?} place might be near the conning tower, within camera view!)
Despite all this confusion, I think it has been well demonstrated that polar sea ice in the Arctic, and newly OPENING leads are very dynamic. Furthermore, maybe our recent very multi-faceted discussions are getting us bogged-down. What‘s more, the same sort of message as launched by Anthony’s lead post (especially in the first image) can also be seen, and arguably more dramatically in the 18 May 1987 rendezvous of three submarines at the NP. (See lead photo above).
Ah; but it was not at the peak of winter freeze right? True, but take a look at the following graphic, and it shows that mid May is characteristically not much different to mid March in terms of ice levels!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
So, the alarmist claim is that in recent years, there has been a dramatic acceleration in melt of sea-ice around the Arctic/NP. Well what about the conning tower break-through of the USS Charlotte through not 1 or 2 feet of ice, or water, as previously, but ~5 feet of ice in 2005”, Here follows some discussion, with links to the text and the photo:
In recent years, journeys to the North Pole by air (landing by helicopter or on a runway prepared on the ice) or by icebreaker have become relatively routine, and are even available to small groups of tourists through adventure holiday companies.
In 2005, the United States Navy submarine USS Charlotte (SSN-766) surfaced through 155 cm (61 inches) of ice at the North Pole and spent 18 hours there.[21]
Text: http://www.answers.com/topic/north-pole
Photo: http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Chralotte_Northpole.jpg/220px-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, in checking the Boyd-Wilkins archive, I found this STARBOARD view:
USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole, March 17, 1959. Wilkins 35-5-1.
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_1.jpg
HMM! WRPT various other comments!!!!!
Gary Crough (05:51:41), I did not have time before this to comment on your:
“…As for the Catlin adventure … I think it is misguided. Clearly much more than they hoped to learn (and they learned only a fraction of what they hoped) could be obtained via any sub in a fraction of the time. In addition, more detailed information on ice thickness was obtained via a scientific fly-over that took place before the Catlin adventure ended…”
I agree, but also putting aside that it is impossible to measure change without some comparative datum, what really irritates me about the whole adventure, is that despite his previous “accident prone” polar screw-up, Haddow et al somehow managed to convince some gullible people to cough-up a great chunk of money to fund it!!!!!
Ludicrous!
DA. Freiberg (07:57:25), you wrote in part:
“…If water and air temps are the same, the differences have to be winds and currents, not global warming. Comdr. Calvert’s data must be referenced in the future any time we get the “ice free north pole” drivel.”
Gary Crough (10:25:23) , you also wrote in part:
“…Because of these currents it seems to me that the importance of “multi-year ice” is overstated. The arctic ocean is a big ice machine with water flowing in from the N Pacific, freezing and then melting as it moves to the N Atlantic. There are a couple of circular currents that may delay some ice but ice older than 3-4 years is rare??? Is that true? Anyway, once the ice reaches S Greenland in the summer it does not matter how old it is … it is going to melt.”
Concerning the so-called record melts in 2007 & 2008, here is an extract from a NASA – JPL study, that we don’t hear a lot about at NSIDC or from the usual alarmists:
“…Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters…”
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
I was drafting an anti cap-and-trade letter to my Congressman and was going to include that 1st sub photo. So I thought I would verify it was legit; It is posted with a misleading label on NAVSOURCE but I could not find any other source. Then I stumbled on “Surface at the Pole” and got a copy. That book made it clear Skate never surfaced in open water at the pole in the winter. Bad news for deniers.
But it also made it clear that arctic ice is in constant motion and the idea of using it as a proxy for global temp is a stretch. At any given specific point a given ice flow will linger only a few days. So if you measured the depth of ice at the pole one day and came back in a week chances are you would be sampling a different ice flow … one that may have taken a very different path to get to the pole … so it could be thicker or thinner based on how long it had lingered in the arctic. And if you were lucky (like the Skate) you may even find fresh (thin) ice formed over a lead. Until that sunk in I thought the Navy studies were silly.
Here is a Navy study: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA474361&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The Navy takes ice thickness readings with its subs and produces average arctic ice thickness data. The readings are almost continuous during a given trip (and apparently accurate within a centimeter) but each sub takes a totally different route so how can you compare month-to-month or year-to-year with the Navy data. You can’t. Nor does it matter since a given ice flow does not linger anywhere for a month much less a year. So the Navy approach actually makes sense?? They cover a huge area taking lots of samples and simply conclude the average ice thickness in the arctic circle is X. They have been doing that for years.
More bad news for alarmists: As late as 2007 the Nave thought arctic ice was decreasing in thickness.
But I recall reading a comment from a Navy officer stating (just prior to the Catlin trip) that arctic ice had been growing over a centimeter a year for the past couple years. That comment struck me because the Navy seemed to know what the Catlin team wanted to find out??? Problem is I have been unable to relocate that statement. Does anyone recall a such a statement? I believe it was an answer to a question of what the Catlin group could expect to find.
Before posting these old news to claim that thin ice is usual in the arctic, you must READ these news. If you have did so, you would have find this:
” 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.”
That obviously mean that ice in 1958-59 was thick (2-3 meters), and these were only HOLES made by wind and tides.
By contrast, ice in last year hit an AVERAGE of 2 m (6 feet) in winter and less than 1m (3 feet) in summer. That means that between 1980 and 2007 ( in 2008-2009 the numbers are probably worse) , combining thickness and area data, the arctic loss approximately 30-40% of winter ice volume and 70 % of summer ice volume.
THIS POST IS , FOR ALL THIS , SELF-CONTRADICTORY.
I believe you jogged my memory. I have a recollection of the same pictures of subs at the North Pole with caps in French about that time, in a French newspaper. Thanks.
I also want to make a comment on some of the comments on this blog: Of course, isolated evidence is only anecdotal evidence. If there is enough of it though, it’s no isolated any more and therefore, not anecdotal. The accusation of “cherry-picking” is void. That’s how reversals of evidence begin, with tiny attempts by opposing parties to choose between two or more hypotheses. It’s been like this since before Aristotle. It seems to me that globalwarmists have lost track of the simple idea of competing hypotheses. I don’t really expect them to change their minds. I only hope such evidence as the sub pictures will introduce a doubt about dogma in the minds of the many people who are honestly undecided. I have hope because I know many of these.
Wow. That was a close one…it’s a miracle we are still alive. Thanx God we now have Gore, Obama and Pelosi to save us !