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
- Tropical Depression Nadine
- It Is The Voter’s Fault
- Fruit Threatened By Global Warming
- UCSD Students To Prevent Hurricanes And Floods
- Hurricane Doublespeak
- “a globally renowned scholar”
- ” Climate change may be coming for your house”
- “The Floridian quakes with apprehension”
- Milton Propaganda
- “Yes … definitely”
- “Antarctica has turned green”
- Rapidly Intensifying Hurricanes
- Kamala Can Prevent Hurricanes
- The Ultimate Global Warming Test
- “ready for the next one”
- Combining Science And Religion
- 500 Million Years Of Warmer Temperatures
- “Arctic sea ice is headed toward a historic low”
- “Record winter low”
- Kamala Planning Another Half Trillion Dollars For Ukraine
- “the science is absolutely certain”
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
Recent Comments
- arn on Tropical Depression Nadine
- arn on Tropical Depression Nadine
- Yammobethere on Tropical Depression Nadine
- oeman50 on UCSD Students To Prevent Hurricanes And Floods
- Yammobethere on Fruit Threatened By Global Warming
- Gamecock on UCSD Students To Prevent Hurricanes And Floods
- Patrick Powers on Combining Science And Religion
- Patrick Powers on Combining Science And Religion
- D. Boss on Fruit Threatened By Global Warming
- Laurie on It Is The Voter’s Fault
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.