Blue is 1960 north of 80N. Red is 2011 north of 80N. Black is the mean.
Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
- Mike on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Timo, not that one! on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Bill on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Mission Accomplished
Oh! It was worse than we thought in 1960 !
How could we have been so blind ?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857814.jpg
puddles of meltwater above the arctic circle: apparently NOT a new phenomenon.
The beginning of history will need further revision. Soon many of us will have our very birth years erased from the public record.
I’m not disputing that Skate surfaced at the Pole on 17th March, 1957 – but that is not a photo of the event. Hint: sunrise.
There is plenty of diffuse light on March 17. The Sun has width and is not a point source.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/#comment-122344
Precis: there are two easily-accessible sources of documentary evidence about that mission, which establish the following facts.
* The sun was still below the horizon and it was quite dark (it did not appear until 19 March)
* The weather was terrible – a 30 knot blizzard with very low visibility
* The submarine surfaced through ice and was surrounded by it, such that a party of people were able to walk out on it.
That photo shows a submarine surfaced in open water, which would have frozen over in seconds at the Pole in March. There is no snow, no waves (i.e. little wind) and good visibility. It cannot be a photograph of the March event.
[I just hate these faked “moon landing” photos …]
Solution to problem: I don’t think this is “open water,” I think the surface is the sheen of water over ice, I think somebody from the sub walked on that ice and took the picture, I think the background of the B&W photo was contrasted to elucidate the image.
I object. That’s pure speculation.
*1959
Peter, I think you have your solstice and equinox mixed up.
March 20 or 21 is the vernal equinox, the sun is pointed right at the equator.
There’s plenty of sun in the Arctic then…………..
No doubt that photo was taken when the sub surfaced off Hawaii and is a product of a right wing think tank run by the Koch brothers.
Steve; you’re trying to give the impression that this opening formed because of ice melting from a warm atmosphere. That is patently false. Those openings are known as polynyas and they could form anywhere including the North Pole for reasons that had nothing to do with a warmer atmosphere.
Polynyas could be caused by winds blowing holes in the ice; ice floes drifting apart; upwelling of warm water, even in an ice cap colder than today, or other unique circumstances
Anyone can see the truth of what your picture, not your interpretation of it, represents when they do 1 minute worth of Googling. Bottom line, if those openings where caused by the make believe warmth you’re implying, it would have been open throughout the rest of the Arctic; not just the North Pole which is the coldest location in the Arctic.
The very submarines pictured there would have noticed this and would have been able to surface almost anywhere. Such a situation would have made worldwide news. Instead they could spend hours before finding a polynya. Therefore, it was obvious that the ice overhead was too thick and covered too much surface area too allow a submarine to surface anywhere it pleased.
Also, regular ships would have been able to sail through most of a previously impassable North Pole.
No Steve, you can’t do the Orwell thing and change history. It is nowadays that Polynyas are being caused by Global Warmth induced deterioration of the Arctic ice cap. The Arctic is presently riddled with many polynyas. It is ridiculous to compare our present shriveling ice cap with the colder ice cap of the 1950s.
Do some real research and find out the real reasons the polynya pictured above formed. Hint: it has nothing to do with warmer temperatures.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4046.1
PS: Where did you get that ridiculous crayola graph?
@IWB
Are you mad? The paper you linked describes the Weddell Sea polynya. If memory serves, that is in Antarctica.
Not going to tell us much about the North Pole is it?
It’s really very simple…
Polynya’s in the past were caused by weather….
….polynya’s now a caused by catastrophic unprecedented global warming
Even though the truth is, we have no idea how much ice was up there “in the past”
….and as far as we know, it might just be returning to “normal”
“Even though the truth is, we have no idea how much ice was up there “in the past”
….and as far as we know, it might just be returning to “normal””
Sorry, but those submarines crisscrossing underneath the Arctic ice cap since the 1950s would, as I already stated, have noticed a large difference in the state of the ice cap.
Yes, you can see in the Skate photo that there was a lot more ice back then
I made a dumb mistake in attributing that name to the specific polynya involved. However, those polynyas were not the result of general warming for the reasons indicated above.
Clearly the ice was 10 metres thick
Clearly you’re not giving a meaningful response. Bottom line, you know damn well the temperatures where not warmer and that polynyas could be caused by a lot of things other than warmth.
Submarines, in those days, took meticulous records of ice conditions such as extent and depth. Due to the continuous prowling in the Arctic they covered a lot of territory and thus accumulated extensive amounts of data. So ignore historical records all you want.
You also know that you don’t, as real science does, take every possible explanation into account. You don’t even have a coherent narrative. ‘Skeptics’ just accept any frivolous, fandangled story or anecdote that contradicts AGW. It doesn’t matter that many of your ‘facts’ are self contradicting.
In fact, I or anybody else who accepts AGW could invent absurd reasons in support of skepticism and it would be accepted indiscriminately.
Skepticism is like Creation Science; negation, negation, negation.
Bottom line, you’re fantasizing warmth where it never existed and you’re blinding yourself to warmth where it does exist.
Everyone knows that the Arctic is doomed and will be ice free in 2008/2012/2013/2015/2018/2020/2025/2030
Quoting IWB (naturally) …
You may want to walk that quote back once you have sobered up.
Seriously, that is not a sentence you would expect to hear from, well, anyone on planet Earth.
Ah, yes, like the fact that it’s warm now in the Northern Hemisphere! Oh craps, we deny that the temperature! We deny that it warm where it does exists! Oh goodness, grammar too!
And we fantasize warmth where it never [does] existed like the “Artic”, where the North Pole is always the coldest part of the “Artic”.
“Real scientists” will continue observing the arctic, forming hypotheses, testing them, rejecting them and so on . . . And in maybe 10 or 20 years time we may have a better idea of what makes it work the way it does. Its the activists who carry-on about the “science is settled! – hurry! hurry! hurry! act! act! act!” So let’s just wait and see how the sea-ice turns this year, then next year, and again the following year. Chill.