Image from WUWT reader “Boudu”
The Guardian’s George Monbiot suffers (at his own expense) from excessive zeal in trying to disprove a statement by Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker, in his post: How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds
I set the stopwatch running, pasted “National Snow and Ice Data Center” into Google, found the site, clicked on News and Events > Press room > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and discovered that Booker’s claim was nonsense. It took me 26 seconds.
But then a couple of hours later, when commenters on his blog point out Monbiot’s own error in his 26 second rebuttal, he admits he’s “boobed”:
Whoops – looks like I’ve boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play – 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused.
He also confused Global and Polar.
Booker’s article said:(underline mine)
“..the world’s polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.”
Monbiot’s rebuttal said:
“In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above.”
Meanwhile in comments for the Monbiot 26 second rebuttal, some people think the picture of the U.S.S Skate nuclear submarine surfacing at the North Pole in 1959, as reported here. is a fake due to the photo being taken in “twilight”.
One commenter points out the official US Navy record:
Now you are trashing the source of the historical photo of the USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole on 17 March 1959, claiming that such a surfacing could not have occurred on this date.
Check the OFFICIAL U.S. Navy historical archive on site:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesmar.htm
Click on MARCH.
Scroll down and you will read for March 17:
1959 – USS Skate (SSN-578) surfaces at North Pole
Proof enough for you?
Apparently not.
The problem with that photo is that it was taken in daylight, whereas the Skate surfaced on March 17, before sunrise at the North Pole. That set off a flurry of troofer factoids trying to turn day into night.
I guess some people don’t understand the period of twilight, how much light would be available, and how B&W long exposure photography works.
Indeed, the discussion has become the Twilight Zone.
Thanks, Reader. The Navsource pic seems authentic, and it’s frustrating not being able to track down it’s origin. Wish you could share the pics in that NatGeo article. The one showing the burial ceremony appears to be the only documented pic of the sub being in that location at that time. I may get a copy of Calvert’s book and see if there is any help there.
To: “a reader” can you provide a link to the passage above?
To everyone just an FYI.
March 18th is when the sun comes above the horizon on the pole. At the pole, It preceeds the vernal equinox due to refraction of light through the atmosphere.
While at the pole, technically you can exist in two days standing in the same space.
At the pole, you can literally step across the international dateline. You can even take a photo where part of the photo exists in our arbitrary designation “March 17th” while another part of the picture is “March 18th”.
The sun and earth don’t care, all that matters is the position of those bodies relative to linear time. Since we don’t know the GMT time the photo was taken, we can’t say what proportions exist of sun above /below the horizon.
As westhoustongeo points out:
“http://passporttoknowledge.com/antarctica/researchers/katymcnitt/katymcnitt_jnl18.html”
From the South Pole, Civil Twilight begins two weeks before the equinox. The NH equivalent would be March 6. After that, sky brightness doubles every two days until the equinox. That indicates plenty of light to be found at 4 days before the equinox, on March 17.
Once thing is certain though, there’s enough light for a photo. Lot’s of quality film photos have been taken at twilight. It is quite easy to take photographs at twilight, all you need is a good fast lens and proper speed film.
Since this was an historic event for the NAVY, I can’t imagine they’d send an amateur photographer along who might miss the shot or be unfamiliar with taking photos in low light conditions. Most likely they came well prepared to get the photo and had a variety of lens, film, and equipment to do so.
Similarly, I can’t imagine a captain, with his career hinging on this event, surfacing at a time when there would not be enough light for a photograph. They had this all well planned I’m sure. The photographer had the “no” vote. If the photographer knew there would not be enough light, he’d certainly tell the captain. The captain not wanting to jeopardize getting arguably the most important photo of his career, would defer to the judgment of the photographer.
There doesn’t seem to me to be much reason to fake a photo date. If they actually took it at another time, why not just say so? The risk to the captains career when logs and figures are compared later is just too great for any sorts of shenanigans.
Re Anthony, 5/18, 08:08:11,
I have no doubt that the Skate broke through the ice to surface at the N Pole on 3/17/59, and spread Wilkins’ ashes. I just have a hard time believing that the Navsource photo depicts that event.
Your 4/26 post, “Ice at the N Pole in 1958 and 1959 — not so thick” has a more credible photo of the Skate and Seadragon in open water at the Pole in August of 1962.
REPLY: You are one of the last people that I would expect to see doubting a photo like this, what is your basis for doubt? – Anthony
Maybe someone could mail a US Navy archive and ask?
christopher booker (14:14:10) :
..it was me in very much younger days, when I was editor of the British satirical magazine Private Eye, who first coined the term Grauniad
Respect! I didn’t realise it went back so far.. 🙂
The curious thing (apart from the Moonbat) is that the typos still appear, years after the abandonment of hot-metal and the invention of spell-checking! Perhaps it’s just to make the readers feel at home.
There doesn’t seem to me to be much reason to fake a photo date
I agree, especially considering the rather limited likely distribution. Perhaps we’ve all been absorbing too much Catlin disinformation!
Having said that, of course it hasn’t stopped the warmists on Monbiot’s blog from making hay with it, so I guess we still have to be careful…
It is clear from Commander Calvert’s account of the voyage that the crew of the USS Skate performed very courageous, very difficult maneouvers requiring the highest seamanship skills.
It would be disrespectful to the crew of the Skate to leave any confusion about those events. I see that as the most important issue here.
For me, that’s the reason why we have to get to the bottom of this.
Hi folks,
Not sure about copyright, but it would settle this debate fairly, I think, if the full article by Capt. Calvert in the 1959 National Geographic were made available as a PDF. Apart from anything else, I’m sure it will be a fascinating read of a difficult mission undertaken in a very challenging environment.
Cheers – John
John,
I don’t think they allow online PDFs for copyright reasons, but you can purchase back issues from here, $15 per issue:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/community/faq2.html#backissues
It’s the July 1959 issue.
John Mason wrote: “…but it would settle this debate fairly, I think,”
For rational people yes, for some of the irrational ones, such as some commenters on Monbiot’s blog, no amount of evidence would be sufficient.
That being said, I agree with allister duncan. – Anthony
Anthony
This was an article printed by the Guardian in 2000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2000/aug/23/g2.weather
“….Arctic specialists read fearful media accounts of the icebreaker tour with mixed feelings. On one hand, they knew that open water at the North Pole is not, in fact, unusual – as the repeated submarine surfacings there show. Even in winter, the winds which keep the ice constantly moving across the sea of the Arctic basin cause cracks, ridges and large polynyas to appear. The Skate surfaced in 1959 through a lead of open water which had recently frozen over….”
Surely the point is that as the Guardian itself says, open water is not unusual. We have numerous reports of it from the 1920/30’s
This refers to a warmer arctic 75 years ago recorded on Pathe newsreel by Bob Bartlett on the Morrisey during his journeys there in the 1920’s and 1930’s and reported in all the media.
http://boothbayharborshipyard.blogspot.com/2008/08/arctic-explorer-on-ways.html
“Wednesday, 10th August 1932
The ship rolled heavily all night and continues to do so….
The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared, and stopped a matter of inches before it reached the pile of cement waiting to be taken up the mountain. Fortunately, in spite of heavy sea, which was running, the Captain had managed to be set shore this morning so he was there with them to help straighten out things and calm them down.”
We can follow melting ice back throuigh to the 1790’s when whalers reported unprecedented arctic ice melt to the Royal Society who eventually sent an expedition twenty years later (they were busy fighting the French earlier) only to find it had refrozen
Back through the Hudson Bay Co records who regularly reported wildly variable arctic ice conditions
Through the Viking era 1000 years ago
This refers to the Vikings living in a warmer arctic culture. THere is a very interesting book about them called ‘The Viking world’. It is a very scholarly and highly referenced book running to some 700 pages and deals with all aspects of the Vikings. It is good because it does not have an axe to grind, but deals matter of factly with all aspects of Viking culture and exploration.
There is a large section on their initial exploration of Greenland, the subsequent establishment of their farms there, everyday life, how they gradually lost access to the outside world as the sea lanes closed through ice, a record of the last wedding held In Greenland and how trade dried up. It also deals with Vinland/Newfoundland and it seems that it was wild grapes that helped give the area its name, it being somewhat warmer than today.
The book ‘The Viking World’ is Edited by Stefan Brink with Neil Price Published by Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 33315-3
This is one of a number of similar books that record our warmer and cooler past. Al Gore wrote a good book in 1992 called ‘Earth in the Balance’ in which he explored the changing climate that devastated the civilisations in the Southern Hemishpere.
WE can then travel back through the Arctic Ipiatuk culture 2000 years ago. This link leads to the Academy of science report
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1078291
Prior to that a land bridge from Russia to Alaska was flooded when the ice melted and sea level rose.
It is by no means unusual or unprecedented for the arctic ice to melt.
If the matter of the photo is considered important I will offer to buy it in the name of ‘getting to the truth’ then see what it says and make a post here. In the interests of fairness I will also post on the Guardian blog as they seem very exercised by the matter. The irony that the Guardian reported open water in 1959 some 9 years ago will no doubt be appreciated by them
Tonyb.
I have now searched for further archive photographs of the USS Skate.
My primary source is the Naval History and Heritage Command. I would find it inconceivable that they would get it wrong.
This is the USS Skate (SSN-578) page:
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s13/skate-ii.htm
It shows an image of the USS Skate in ice. The text formatting is confusing, but the line that I believe is the caption (at the very bottom) reads
“On 17 March 1959, the nuclear submarine Skate (SSN-578) surfaced through Arctic ice at the North Pole. She had visited the Pole the previous year, becoming the second ship to do so.”
My second source is The Byrd Polar Research Center archive, which shows the photograph of Wilkins ashes being scattered:
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg
The caption is
“Crew of the USS Skate during the memorial ceremony for Wilkins on March 17, 1959. Wilkins’ ashes were scattered over the Arctic ice”
The boat looks lower in the water in the Byrd archive photograph, but the two photographs seem to be consistent with each other.
They both seem to be inconsistent with the Navsource photograph, which shows much more water around the boat. Navsource is a volunteer site, and I am sure they are very competent and conscientious, but they do not have the formal authentication procedures that an official archive will have. I am increasingly concerned that the Navsource photograph has been incorrectly identified.
Re Anthony’s reply to my 5/18 20:58:30:
I just like to make sure my facts are straight before going out on a limb. As I pointed out in my post of 5/18 08:08:11, it seems suspicious that there is no evidence of the ice that the Skate had to break through to do a winter surfacing, according to the written accounts, and the following photograph, identified by http://library.osu.edu/sites/exhibits/nautilus/afterwards.html as “USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole, March 17, 1959. Wilkins 35-5-1″:
The water is clearly freshly frozen by the winter temperatures, and the sub has clearly just broken through the thinish (1-2 foot) ice. There is a lot of light, but not unreasonable for just 4 days before daybreak. (Click on photo for full size)
I suggest we go with this photo instead of the earlier one as the iconic image of the Skate surfacing at (or near) the NP on 3/17/59. We don’t have this direct from the Navy, but the OSU Libraries have staked their reputation on the accuracy of the caption. This ought to be plenty good for Wikipedia. Mike Lorrey, go to it!
The same page also has the following photo, mentioned already above by AKD 5/17 14:54:28, of “Crew of the USS Skate during the memorial ceremony for Wilkins on March 17, 1959. Wilkins’ ashes were scattered over the Arctic ice. Wilkins 35-5-4″:
Any real historians out there might still want to triple check this through Laura Kissel (kissel.4@osu.edu), the OSU library contact given on the exhibit website, and/or the US Navy via http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/nhcorg11.htm, but I for one have no doubt about the accuracy of these captions, even aside from this being an OSU site.
These photos make me even less confident in the caption on the one in the 4/26 post, because of its open water and lack of broken ice. But perhaps it can be tracked down through the Navy site as well.
The direct photo links in my 07:50:10 post don’t seem to have worked. But meanwhile, Allister Duncan (06:42:12) has found an even better URL to the same photos. The one I gave was just an OSU Library exhibition site. Allister’s is actually an OSU Library/Byrd Polar Research Center URL. In other words, the accuracy of the caption is now vouched for by Lonnie Thompson’s own outfit, in addition to OSU Libraries!
Exhibit URL (Byrd Center version): http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/afterwards.html
Exhibit Photo # Wilkins 35-5-1, identified as “USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole, March 17, 1959.” http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_1.jpg
Exhibit Photo #Wilkins 35-5-4, identified as “Crew of the USS Skate during the memorial ceremony for Wilkins on March 17, 1959. Wilkins’ ashes were scattered over the Arctic ice.” http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg.
I believe that “onthefence” of the Guardian has provided the correct answer to the photo question, in spite of him/her/self. Below is posted my comment to “onthefence”
=========comment follows=================
Onthefence, I’ve been trying to follow your arguments and I’ve gotten confused. Please enlighten me! What I understand from your arguments as expressed in your various posts thus far:
1. Anthony Watts is a liar or an otherwise untrustworthy fellow because in an article about what the North Pole actually looked like in the past, he posted a photo from Navsource. The source of Navsource’s photo was “tripod.com”. Navsource’s other source of photos was the US Navy. Therefore, Anthony Watts is a liar because he used a picture with no provenance even though it matched others on the site that were sourced to the US Navy.
2. There is no way the Watts/Navsource/tripod.com picture could have been taken at the stated time (March 17, 1959) because it was dark. The sun wasn’t due to rise until March 18.
3. There is no way the Watts/Navsource/tripod.com picture could have been taken at the stated time (March 17, 1959) because it was twilight. Hmm. I thought you said it was dark.
4. This picture http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg (OSU 35_5_4) is a properly sourced picture which shows “what a long exposure in twilight really looks like, for the photography “experts” out there”. Hmm. I thought you said it was too dark that day to take pictures. Oh. Too dark to take “clear” pictures. And the ice was right up to the submarine. No open water.
I hope I have correctly stated your arguments. I will assume until you state otherwise that your answer is yes.
If OSU 35_5_4 is a properly sourced picture, then what about any other picture in this catalog? If I post any other picture from this catalog, am I a liar like Anthony Watts? Well, how about this picture which according to the caption was also taken on March 17, 1959? http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/nautilus/images/wilkins35_5_1.jpg (OSU 35_5_1)
Onthefence, comparing the Watts/Navsource/tripod.com pictures with OSU 35_5_1, I don’t see any radical differences in what the pictures show. Other than the OSU 35_5_1 picture seems to be much brighter and clearer than the Watts/Navsource/tripod.com picture, which could be just the difference in angle and possibly a relatively short time had elapsed as three of the personnel on the “deck” seem to be in about the same positions in both pictures.
But, but, but I thought you said ti was too dark to take “clear” pictures? I thought that the ice was right up to the sub’s hull?
It is, it seems, but only on one side.
Meanwhile, back at the Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ article. The argument of that article, unlike yours, was relatively straightforward.
Here it is, clearly stated, in case you missed it worrying about the provenance of ONE picture that clearly matches the provenance of ANOTHER picture (OSU 35_5_1):
“The point illustrated here: the North Pole is not static, ice varies significantly. The Arctic is not static either. Variance is the norm.”
In 1959, 1962 and 1987, the North Pole was covered with ice mixed with leads of open water, as shown by NAVY and the OSU photographs that YOU say are the real McCoy.
The ice was “less than 2 feet thick” in March 1959 when at the point when ice at the Pole should have been its thickest.
That’s “first year ice” in modern parlance. In 1999, the ice was more solid as shown by the 1999 sub picture, although probably still “first year ice”.
The current AGW wailing is that “first year ice” will melt during the summer.
Therefore, IF the MSM saw all this “first year ice” on March 17 of THIS year, what would have been the reaction? Much the same, I’ll wager, as the Catlin Survey’s hype from its supporters.
By the way, better have your suntan lotion ready if you’re going to visit the North Pole today: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg NOT!
============Guardian comment ends=============
So, as far as I can discern, the OSU 35_5_1 picture is the icebreaker.
No pun intended.
The similarities between it and the Navsource/tripod.com photo are marked. If you want, throw out the Navsource/tripod.com photo. The OSU 35_5_1 and 35_5_4 photos more than adequately makes the case for what conditions were like on March 17, 1959 – changeable, just in the course of one day!
Regards to all with particular thanks to Anthony for this site – my first post but my zillionth visit.
RE Allister Duncan, 06:42:12,
I don’t think that that sentence can be taken as a caption for the photo. The photo of the Skate surfacing through winter ice on the OSU Libarary/Byrd Center exhibit site you found is a lot better identified. And if Lonnie Thompson’s own organization vouches for the caption, what warmer could possibly question it?
Though if you want actual open water at the pole, the August 1962 of the Skate and Seadragon rendezvousing (sp?) is even better.
“I don’t think that that sentence can be taken as a caption for the photo.”
Hu,
I found the text formatting confusing. The text is in chronological order all the way to 1974, then there is one short sentence about 1959 at the end. I think this may be intended as the caption for the photograph, but I agree that this is speculative. An inquiry (from a reader in the US) would clear it up. I imagine the Naval History and Heritage Command will be grateful to have this brought to their attention, as the formatting is very unclear as it stands.
I agree that the captions on the Byrd site are crystal clear and unambiguous.
..better have your suntan lotion ready if you’re going to visit the North Pole today: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
That’s a great picture, and presumably shows pretty much what it was like these guys drove up there last month:
http://www.yemelya.ru/index.php
It’s a shame they didn’t meet the Catlin trio – they could have given them a lift home!
Something else to consider of course – it’s been missed in the debate so far as I can see – how thick does Winter polar ice have to become for open leads to be prevented from developing?
We already know from snippets of Calvert’s description that there were pressure-ridges of some size in the area, and we know from the same source that in preparation for surfacing they were carefully seeking open leads through which to do so. The photo shows the sub having come up through ice no more than a few (possibly as little as 1-2) feet thick which might be expected to develop quickly in an open lead once the water surface was exposed to the air.
We know that open leads are generated by tidal currents/groundswell creating tensile stresses in sea-ice. We also know that mature sea-ice extends below the waterline. So, how thick does it have to get before the tensile fracturing that creates open leads becomes more and more unlikely?
Cheers – John
I could have done this is less than 26 seconds, without the “boobing” and while simultaneously being entertained.
Turn on “The Deadliest Catch” sometime on Discovery. It follows the King and Opelio crab fishing that takes place on the Bering Sea from October to March. For someone like me trained to look for such things I get to see the following things, live and in full HD:
1) the edge of the arctic ice pack, which for the last 3 seasons has reached past the Bering Strait, encroaching on the northern Bering Sea Crab grounds
2) the cool graphic they drop in after commercial breaks which basically starts with a real time (on the show) satellite photo of the arctic circle. Over the course of a season you can see the ice cap growing. Go grab the whole series on DVD and you can clearly see that the extent of sea ice last winter (’07-08) was the biggest since the show started.
3) fishermen goofing off by pulling their boats up to the edge of the ice cap, jumping off, and running around and having snowball fights on the ice cap SOUTH OF THE BERING STRAIT IN MARCH.
And by the way, one thing you never see are wayward polar bears or floating polar bear corpses.
The truth is ALL AROUND US. When an hour of casual TV watching can dispel some of the major myths about global warming you have to wonder who actually believes it. And sadly this is a testament to how tightly the alarmists have snugged the blinders on, just to validate their bankrupt thinking.
All the more reason to never give those people the control they want to have over you.
Just some background stuff for the conspiracy theorists:
Civil twilight is when the center of the Sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon. You can read a book or play ball games (very important in the UK here!) in those conditions. At the Poles it starts some 2 weeks before the spring Equinox and siilarly ends some 2 weeks after the autumnal one.
Nautical twilight starts and ends when the Sun is at 12 degrees below the horizon. Up to then the horizon is still discernable (so that you can use a sextant, hence the name).
But at the Equinox itself the Sun is already over the horizon at the Poles because of the refraction of the light passing through the atmosphere which raises the Suns image by about 50 arcminutes, almost a full degree.
On the 17th of March, hence, at least part of the Sun was visible from the North Pole.
Here is a video of a debate between Congressmen Jim Moran and Dana Rohrabacher, “moderated” by Chris Matthews of MSNBC.
The use of petty name calling and insults by Chris Mathews and the reliance upon “scientific consensus” and IPCC conclusions by Jim Moran are indicative of the state of the debate. The alarmists are out of facts so now they are just trying to attack those who disagree with them and muddle their way forward.
Monbiot today:
Computer models are only as good as the assumptions they contain, which is why those assumptions are constantly tested and updated. No one claims to have a definitive answer; instead the models test hundreds of different likely scenarios, then find the median result. There is no attempt to make the future look either rosier or grimmer than it is.
So much faith, so gullible…
Hu, Allister, and DA,
Thanks for the research and support, as well as candid opinions.
I’m looking into this as well, and have leads on several pieces of background info, including books and additional film/photo footage that will help answer the question of the caption accuracy.
Certainly there must exist some certifiable provenance for that photo, the NAVY typically doesn’t NOT log such things, nor would a boat captain not log everything he gathered on such an important mission that he knew would get worldwide attention. Be it pro or con, I’ll share what I find. At the same time, anyone who wants to concentrate on finding that photo provenance sans conspiracy theory, personal attacks, or slander is welcome to do so and post it here.
But as Hu points out: ”
“Though if you want actual open water at the pole, the August 1962 of the Skate and Seadragon rendezvousing (sp?) is even better.”
The whole point of my original article – that sea ice at the north pole is quite variable from year to year, sometimes being very thin with open leads, sometimes not – seems to have been lost in the angry tussle over that one NAVSOURCE photo caption while everything else is ignored.
But that photo is the thing that draws people to the article and it is the main draw on every other website that is using your article. Maybe it is only me but that makes the article less valuable as important information in this debate. I also think it allows people to go ‘look, how can you trust the writing when the photo is suspect’. I think you should change it to one of the others that have been found by Hu and DA.
REPLY: Nice (but failed) attempt at stealth there, “MeFinny2” I presume? We’ll wait and see what the archival footage brings, because we certainly want to base the decision on evidence at hand, not opinion from anonymous posters.- Anthony