The photo Al Gore and the global warming wackos don’t want you to see

by editor on May 4, 2009

uss_skate_north_pole

Al Gore is not going to like this photo. Not at all. It’s a 1958 shot of the U.S.S. Skate, the first submarine to surface at the North Pole. In case you missed the significance of that sentence, let us hammer it home.

It’s 1958. That’s the North Pole. There’s no ice. Gore and his global warming brethren have repeatedly told us that the ice has never been as thin in the arctic as it is today, but this photo tells another story. It’s pretty clear that in 1958 the arctic was…well…pretty clear.

Not only did the the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub’s hull.

The brilliant Anthony Watts has more photos at his website. He also offers this transcript from a 1958 newsreel:

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.

It hasn’t been a good year for Gore. His Apple stock is down. His Google stock is down. And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, his personal stock is down.

Source: WattsUpWithThat.com

Further reading: Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Dog May 4, 2009 at 7:12 am

Controversial. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10

Have you even read the quote you posted? In a 3000 mile voyage the sub is able to surface just 10 times. So how do you write about ‘virtually ice-free water in the North Pole’, let alone jump to the conclusion that this photo disproves global warming?

Sigh May 4, 2009 at 7:33 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

The North Pole isn’t frozen all year round, you realise?

4 givan 1 May 4, 2009 at 7:46 am

Controversial. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

Glo-bull warming is a myth created to destroy capitalism and the vestiges thereof.

Leoj July 28, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

Brother, Capitalism is dying, if it is not already dead, what it will evolve into I have no clue but every cycle has a beginning and an end, this is sadly the end…

KathyMary May 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

Controversial. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

Book – read it as a teenager :
http://www.submarinebooks.com/Nautilus.htm
Nautilus 90 north. by Commander William R. Anderson USN. Great book. Might have some details about this sort of thing. I remember it being more about NOT surfacing at all but I read it in oh, 1968 or so, memory is faded.
Hey, Dog. Good name for you, sir or madam… I’ll bet you a Cheese cake the reason that they only surfaced 10 times had less to do with ice thickness and not being about to (one way or other!) THAN PROOF That it could be done with only 10 visits to the surface. The first Nuclear Subs were constantly trying to stay under as long as possible. Why do you think subs were some of the first ships to get nuclear power? The big issue was whether subs that could run under surface for months without surfacing and what that meant for the cold war. It was important to have subs that could not be detected, run silent close to enemy shores, etc. Still important.
And yes, ice – the real thing can crush boats of any size or type, given the right conditions. Ice varies, also. Read about explorations of North and South Poles – ice isn’t a constant. There are kinds of ice, names for the styles of sea ice. a good wind can move ice – ice can float in and close up in a night.

Conventional subs had to surface to refresh air, batteries – There was no way to really keep air breathable for longer periods of time. I seem to remember something called air scrubbers but the technology was primitive (?) Read some books about the horrors that men suffered when they didn’t surface.. I remember a fiction book “Run Silent, Run Deep” by Lt Com Edward Beach READ books on the sub service during WWII – some of the most fantastic stories you will ever read! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_L._Beach,_Jr. (he was the real thing!) I seem to remember something in there about running without surfacing – reason, the entire Japanese navy was after them.
Background to USS Skate 578 (Nuke.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)
What scares me about global warming is that it is fad that is disguised as fact and doctrine. I don’t mind that people want it to be true, find it ennobling to believe it is true, want to save the polar bears and all, want to drive smaller cars, – good for them! I hate the damnable smugness and self-righteousness of the Left – that and the name calling if you don’t buy into the High Religion of Global warming. Believe anything you want – just don’t try to force me to believe in it !

KathyMary May 4, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Could someone please supply an edit button on this site? pretty please?
“that they only surfaced 10 times had less to do with ice thickness and not being about to (one way or other!)”
Huh?

Mike M May 7, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

No biggie but Wikipedia has the date of the photo as March 17, 1959 not 1958. To ALL the above who claim that this does not disprove the theory of AGW – please state exactly what exactly WOULD disprove it in your mind? Caution… if you unable to state a single piece of scientific evidence that would disprove the theory then it is NOT a valid scientific theory to begin with! All you really have is a silly assertion that there is a compelling correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Okay.. SHOW ME A CORRELATION WITH REAL DATA? Sorry, the only one you will find is not REAL at all – it is only a computer model, not REALITY.

Gary Crough May 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Rated Awesome! What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

Mike M — According to James Calvert (Captain of the Skate on this voyage) the sub surfaced in an ice-covered lead (as these cracks in arctic ice tend to be near the pole in March) after circling for several hours hoping for an opening. (Ice moves ~ 2.5/miles per day at the pole) -From “Surface at the Pole”; book by Vice ADM Calvert.

The 28 degree F arctic wintertime seawater tends to freeze to a depth of 6 inches in a single day when the air temp is -30 (typical for the winter). The Stake searched for “sky lights” … the thin ice formed in leads (cracks in ice flow). The crew held a service for (and distributed the ashes of) an arctic explorer at the pole. They slid down the sub onto the ice. There is no open water near the pole in the winter … it freezes to fast. Captain Calvert reports the temperature was -28 F.

That photo was from NAVSOURCE and is mislabeled. It is the Skate but is NOT a photo of the historic surfacing but likely one made the previous summer (Skate’s initial voyage). Watts assumed the info was correct (I think not and put the error on NAVSOURCE not Watt). The Watts article contains info that makes it clear that the surfacing was through thin ice.

As far as disproving AGW I don’t think that is possible. It is not a scientific (falsifiable) theory but a religion. Unless you count the four IPCC global forecasts with confidence ranges as predictions of the AGW theory. If so, AGW was disproven by the IPCC 4 times … four projections all wrong … the earth is colder than all four of the coldest possible projection. The IPPC will start working on a new report within a year … I am sure they will produce another equally fine projection of global climate.

Andreas March 21, 2010 at 7:18 am

Controversial. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

“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.” – Crew member of said submarine. Climate denial is really void of all sense of source criticism.

Darrell January 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

I don’t believe anyone denies climate, but many of us deny that man has as much influence as some would suggest. First it was dubbed global warming, and we were told to note that the winters were too warm. Then, under a normal winter followed by a mild summer, we said there must be something wrong with this theory, only to be told no, the theory is sound, the seasons are blending together. Then we had a harsh winter followed by a warm summer and were told to not look behind the curtain at the man claiming the seasons were blending, the seasons are actually becoming more severe! Ah, then we had a normal year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The response was that we were ignorant to think of the global warming theory as only a warming trend (despite the depiction on charts of this trend being as such), and not recognize that what was meant all along was that the climate was changing, but in general.

I cannot help but say, there is no concrete proof of Global Warming beyond what is most likely a normal trend in our planet’s climate to move up and down a few degrees. Is it a possibility? Yes. It’s no more certain to me than Jesus is no more certain to an average child in Madagascar. My father has pictures of his parents from the Little Ice Age in North America. We’ve certainly warmed up some since then. Discovery Channel has illustrated drawings and animation to show me what the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes looked like as well, and we’ve warmed up 3 fold since then. There is indeed climate change afoot, and there always will be, with or without automobiles, flatulent cows, and political protagonists.

Kyle M July 24, 2011 at 7:05 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Uhmm, the official navy description of the photo above lists time and place unknown. We can be pretty sure that wherever it is, it is not at the pole, because other navy photos showing the Skate at the pole show it clearly surrounded by ice, with jagged strips leaning on it, evidence that the Skate did not just surface, but had to smash its way up (it had a specially armored superstructure for just that purpose, but still had to pick the spot where it surfaced very carefully).

Tourist icebreakers now smash their way all the way to the Pole on the surface!

Sort October 6, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I’m just thinking.. Who took the picture and how?

{ 3 trackbacks }