The Ice-Free North Pole

Sixty years ago, the USS Skate surfaced at the ice-free North Pole.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

The Bush family immediately recognized it as an opportunity to wage war with Russia.

13 Aug 1958, 1 – Star-Gazette at Newspapers.com

So nothing has changed over the last 60 years, except that the ice is a lot thicker now.

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180418.png

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The Ice-Free North Pole

  1. Griff says:

    I don’t know how you have the bare faced cheek to post this…

    finding a polyna or thin ice area (using sonar) at the Pole says nothing about the overall state of the ice… there is certainly no comparison between that and the coming future state of an ice free pole in summer (where likely you will be able to sail in clear water from some coast to the Pole).

    Elsehwere the commander of the Skate documented dodging areas of ice hanging down fifty or sixty feet below the surface. He’d have a hard time finding ice more that 15 feet thick these days

    • Gator says:

      I don’t know how you keep showing your face Ms Griff. Most genocidal maniacs (especially those who constantly get their “facts”wrong) slink back into the shadows once spotted.

      Why do you care more about meaningless ice than you do about poor brown people?

    • tonyheller says:

      Climate alarmists are like a broken record, repeating the same nonsense century after century.

      “Some scientists estimate that the polar ice pack is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent less in area than it was a half-century ago, and that even within the lifetime of our children the Arctic Ocean may open, enabling ships to sail over the North Pole, as the submarines Nautilus and Skate recently sailed under it.

      Although the idea that a solid ice sheet covers the central Arctic has lingered stubbornly in the popular fancy, the northern cap of Ice worn by our planet is actually a thin crust—on the whole, only about seven feet thick”
      – New York Times October 19, 1958

    • Latitude says:

      ” He’d have a hard time finding ice more that 15 feet thick these days”……

      “Currently 28% of Arctic basin sea ice is multi-year ice,[2] thicker than seasonal ice: up to 3–4 m (9.8–13.1 ft) thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 m (65.6 ft) thick.”

      “This page was last edited on 1 February 2018, at 07:51.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_pack

    • Andy DC says:

      A prototypical alarmist mindlessly spouting propaganda which has no basis in fact. Without the absurd 1979 cherry picked starting point (most ice since the Little Ice Age), there is nothing at all alarming about the current state of Arctic Sea Ice. In fact, Arctic Sea Ice is currently very close to long term averages and well within the range of natural variability.

    • Anon says:

      Griff:

      /I don’t know how you have the bare faced cheek to post this…/

      You mean like this???

      Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica

      Climate change will force refugees to move to Antarctica by 2030, researchers have predicted.

      Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by 2040.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3353247/Climate-change-study-predicts-refugees-fleeing-into-Antarctica.html

      If you really really really believe what you are reading and posting, you
      ought to look into real estate investment down there. If you don’t have
      the spare change, then you must have some friends and family who do.

      • Texas sharp-shooter says:

        Thank God, the way things are going we may have to go as far as Chicago to have the same effect as moving to Antarctica. Yay!

    • AndyG55 says:

      griff, you would have a hard time finding which was your brain in the cat’s litter tray !!

  2. arn says:

    Now i know why Griff is so pissed.
    Her parents are survivers of the ice free arctic of the 50ies.
    Sitting on their butts and don’t giving a shit about arctic ice because it does not matter is really brave and heroic.

    But don”t be jealous as every Generation has to swallow its own specific mental disorder created by tptb and this one was regularly told that they”ll be atom bombed by the russians.
    A generation later it was the ozon layer((imagine all those emotionalised lefty faggots who were so extremly ‘worried’ about the ozon layer – and nowadays they don’t give a shit about it because it is no longer on TV)).

    And nowadays we have the best of the best:Everything combined.
    A Hitler everywhere(in Russia,Turkey,Syria)
    a global catastrophy ((which occured right in time to serve the globalists for centralising power)).

    • Griff says:

      My parents are survivors of World War 2…

      Arctic sea ice matters because losing it makes the climate impact worst.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Arctic sea ice matters because losing it makes the climate impact worst”

        BULLS**T.. you live in a MINDLESS fantasy land, griff.

        The world has had FAR LESS sea ice that now for most of the interglacial.

        Too much sea ice, like now, is a HINDERANCE rather than a benefit to anyone.

  3. Don Easterbrook says:

    1958 is at the end of the 1915-1950+ warm period so it is small wonder that the ice was thin then.

  4. MDJ says:

    I love this site. Always pulling great historical data out of the memory hole.

    • Griff says:

      And giving it an unjustified spin, cherry picking it and misrepresenting it…

      • Gator says:

        Ms Griff, you obviously have this confused with an alarmists site. Tony simply prints the stories as they appeared. No adjustments, no homogenization, no kriging, no models, no nonsense.

        Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

  5. R. Shearer says:

    Did the heatwave in Belgium kill anyone today?

  6. gregole says:

    Warming Crisis. Cooling Crisis. Measured in a couple of tenths of a degree. What crisis?

  7. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Recent post at Anthony Watts website.
    “Arctic ice like you’ve not seen it before.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/19/arctic-ice-like-youve-not-seen-it-before/

  8. richard says:

    lets not forget –

    New York Times – May 18, 1926
    Lincoln Ellsworth of the Amundsen-Ellsworth transpolar expedition told The Associated Press here today that he saw much open water at the North Pole when he and his sixteen companions passed over it last Tuesday night in the dirigible Norge.

  9. Griff says:

    I found this additional information…

    USS Skate did indeed surface at the North Pole but not until 17 March 1959. Ice conditions in August 1958 were too heavy at the Pole for the Skate to surface, as they were for the Nautilus some days earlier. The Skate did surface in several other leads and polynya that August, including one near Ice-station Alfa.

    When the Skate sailed for the Arctic the following year, the sail had been strengthened to allow it to break through thin ice. At the Pole, they eventually found a small, refrozen lead, or skylight, and managed to break through it.

    • Gator says:

      And… nobody died.

      Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

      • Griff says:

        I’m sure repeating that means you don’t actually have to think… the point however is that in the pictures posted the 2 subs were UNABLE to surface at the pole, due to the thick ice…

        • Gator says:

          And who died? Why do you care Ms Griff? Poor brown people not being snuffed out fast enough for your liking?

          Sick to know that you are thinking and killing.

          These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

          The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

          And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

    • paul courtney says:

      Griff: So they found open arctic water to surface in the vicinity of the pole in Aug 1958, just could not surface at the pole. After NH winter, in March 1959, the ice at the pole itself was thin enough to break through with reinforced hull. Isn’t the ice usually thicker in March than in August, any given year? How could the ice be thinner in March, with (lest we forget) no influence of increased man-burned CO2 in 1958-59? Your posts show that such questions never give you pause- if it fits your meme at first glance, post it. Even if it doesn’t fit when you give it a second thought. Well, you don’t have second thoughts.

  10. Gator says:

    So Ms Griff, you claim you are thinking while supporting genocide? Nice to know.

    These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

    The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

    And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

  11. Interested says:

    People like ‘Griff’ are unlikely to be persuaded from their quasi-religious belief in global disaster by the introduction into the argument of detailed facts.
    They’re too easily led by fast flashy news bites on TV and in the papers, telling them no more than they’re required by ‘the authorities’ to hear.

    They believe carbon dioxide is a ‘pollutant’ – It’s not!
    They believe carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming – It’s not.
    They have little knowledge of geological and climatological history, so they believe today is warmer than it’s ever been – It’s not!
    They believe the world’s sea level is rising unusually quickly – It’s not.
    They believe that ocean water is dissolving the shells of sea creatures because it’s acidic – It’s not (and never has been)!
    They believe the recent increase in carbon dioxide is detrimental to life – It’s not (in fact the opposite is true)!
    They believe what the mainstream media are telling them about the climate is true – It’s not!
    They believe their government’s principal goal is to maintain their individual freedom and prosperity – It’s not!

    Everything I’ve listed above is quite easily verifiable with a little patience and access to the internet. All you need to do is examine the actual facts instead of swallowing what you’re told without thought or question.
    The fact that so many people, like Griff, believe the nonsense they do, is down to their lack of independent thought and a corresponding inability to do their own research.
    They are just hopelessly naive.
    They imagine they’re doing something noble in protecting the planet; completely oblivious to the truth and therefore playing into the hands of a totally unscrupulous left-wing political cabal.
    People like Griff, are unknowingly sleepwalking into a politically totalitarian world they will NOT enjoy living in. And regrettably, it seems inevitable they won’t wake up until it’s too late.
    The trouble is, they’re taking the rest of us along with them!

    • Revere says:

      Responses to your assertions:
      1. They believe carbon dioxide is a ‘pollutant’ – CO2 is a gas that’s part of the respiratory cycle of plants and animals. It becomes an issue when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the oceans is too high. In the atmosphere CO2 traps heat causing temperature increase. In the oceans, dissolved CO2 makes the water more acidic. This is just science.
      2. They believe carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming – CO2 is causing global warming. You might debate whether or not global warming is dangerous, but the scientific community agrees that CO2 is causing warming, and the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is approaching dangerous levels.
      3. They have little knowledge of geological and climatological history, so they believe today is warmer than it’s ever been – You are correct that Earth has been warmer in the past. Nonetheless, global warming will cause changes in weather patterns, which in turn will cause changes and disruptions in living conditions and require adjustment and adaptation (and most people, probably including you, don’t like change and resist changing their lifestyles or way of life). Climate scientists are concerned about how changes in weather patterns and climate will affect agriculture and food production and demographers predict the disruptions that are and will be caused by climate change will cause climate refugees.
      4. They believe the world’s sea level is rising unusually quickly – The rate of sea level rise has more than doubled when compared to the 20th century (from approx 1.4mm/year throughout most of the 20th century to approx 3.6mm/year from 2005- 2016). Rising sea level threatens coastlines and also contributes to more severe storm surges which cause greater damage such as Superstorm Sandy in 2012, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Hurricane Harvey in 2017, etc.
      5. They believe that ocean water is dissolving the shells of sea creatures because it’s acidic – It’s not (and never has been)! Some of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed in the Earth’s water bodies, primarily the oceans, where it is converted to carbonic acid, which increases the acidity of the ocean. Acid dissolves calcium carbonate. Seashells for many marine creatures are primarily calcium carbonate, so increases in CO2 levels do result in dissolving seashells. You can check this out for yourself by putting a seashell in vinegar (which is only mildly acidic) and leaving it for a couple of weeks. The shell will weaken, and if you leave it long enough it will dissolve – this is the action of the acid in the vinegar on the calcium carbonate on the shell – the same as what happens to seashells on sea creatures in acidified seawater.
      5. They believe the recent increase in carbon dioxide is detrimental to life – It’s not (in fact the opposite is true)! Please explain how an increase on CO2 is beneficial to life. In labs, increased atmospheric CO2 can increase crop yields for certain crops (but not all crops), but if that’s what you’re referring to, the scientists also note that crops grown in an increased CO2 environment are less nutritious (lower levels of iron, zinc and proteins all of which are essential human nutrients). Additionally, this benefit caps at a certain CO2 concentration level, and the potential benefit of CO2 “fertilization” is likely to be outweighed by the drawbacks of increased CO2 levels including drought, heat stress to the plants, changes in soil conditions, etc.
      6. They believe what the mainstream media are telling them about the climate is true – It’s not! Not sure what you mean by this, however, for the most part, the mainstream media reporting reflects scientific studies which show that CO2 levels are rising, average temperatures are rising, polar ice is diminishing, sea levels are rising, storms are increasing in frequency and intensity, wildfires are increasing in intensity and frequency, etc. All of this is consistent with climate science modeling and predictions.
      7. They believe their government’s principal goal is to maintain their individual freedom and prosperity – It’s not! Not sure what this has to do with climate change issues, and this is wrong on a number of levels and requires a pretty extensive discussion in and of itself. Suffice it to say, however, you are generalizing and this is like someone saying that climate change deniers believe their government’s principal goal is poverty and oppression.

  12. John Williams says:

    Try correlating the geomagnetic north pole melting ice in Greenland. Take a look at Earth’s Declination over time.

    https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml

    The molten hot core of earth is moving around and we can’t easily predict where it will wind up. By the way did you realize the number of volcanos has been increased because newer technology increases our vision of the world.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

    Here’s one to search. Why are some recent geyser spouting’s more frequent and their duration is much longer than historical records would support? Why did Kīlauea last so long and how much did the magnetic north pole shift while it was active. The mass of earth is 1.25 million times the mass of the atmosphere. It’s astounding to imagine the ocean water increasing based on the thin veneer of the atmosphere and carbon content.

    Just a thought

Leave a Reply to Gator Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.