It's not unprecedented, the submarines USS Skate and Nautilus surfaced at the North Pole in the winter of 1958.

 

Do you have references for this statement?  Are some searching I can find a report of Skate surfacing on 11th August of that year, with a statement that this was the first submarine to do so.  The source looks fairly robust:

http://www.navalhistory.org/2011/08/11/uss-skate-ssn-578-becomes-the-first-submarine-to-surface-at-the-north-pole

There seem to be scattered references to a surfacing in March 1959 but nothing about the thickness of the ice or the exact location.

There is a reference to Nautilus crossing beneath the North Pole, but that was in July/August of 1958 - and no mention of it surfacing.  Indeed there is a reference to ice 60 feet thick in the Bering Strait in July/August.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_%28SSN-571%29

I understand the need for caution when using words like 'unprecedented' but equally I think we need to use caution when citing events that is questionable ever occurred.

Well here is a quote from one of the links you managed to find all by yourself.

In early March 1959, she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times.

The article I was reading was quoting from an American journalist Ed Herlihy, the transcript :-

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.

I would have thought that in the case of sea-ice, open leads, where refreeze only creates relatively thin first-year (or even month or week) ice, could allow subs to surface at any time of year, assuming they could be detected from underneath....

Yes, even in mid winter you do get leeds occasionally appearing. And during the summer it is entierly normal over the vast majority of the sea ice. One thing that is evident, for example in the 30s is how places that we consider 'peripheries' used to be perenial ice, inc. the barents and kara, even sections of the baffin once had some perenial ice.  

Well here is a quote from one of the links you managed to find all by yourself.

In early March 1959, she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times.

 

The article I was reading was quoting from an American journalist Ed Herlihy, the transcript :-

 

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.

 

Thanks.  I did see that but it referred to March 1959, which isn't "Winter 1958".  The earlier journey was conducted without surfacing.

Anyway, I remain unconvinced - as I have since these historical accounts and maps were first aired here - that they tell us anything significant about the state of the ice.  As John has commented, even with solid ice there are areas of thin(ner) ice that might be opened up for brief periods.

A little less attitude would be nice, by the way.

As John kindly points out no idiot would try and surface a sub under 'normal' ( for that era) ice thickness!!! Pleeeeese, just tihnk about it!

This seasons 'Crakopalypse' event is noted due to it's 'unusual' nature. Leads are common place in the basin , some are predictable and have been used by both wildlife and resident populations for generations?

The sight of any sub ,finding the sub 3m ice to surface through, is not 'News' but to pull it forward as such does raise questions of the poster?

EDIT: Why does Neven use such an image as his old avatar????

I would have thought that in the case of sea-ice, open leads, where refreeze only creates relatively thin first-year (or even month or week) ice, could allow subs to surface at any time of year, assuming they could be detected from underneath....

Yes, even in mid winter you do get leeds occasionally appearing. And during the summer it is entierly normal over the vast majority of the sea ice. One thing that is evident, for example in the 30s is how places that we consider 'peripheries' used to be perenial ice, inc. the barents and kara, even sections of the baffin once had some perenial ice.  

You can check for other years here  and  http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/  (Thanks to four)

This is the directory with historical full size scans of the ice conditions.
(for those implying that because it had been mentioned on WUWT it must be somehow mischievously manipulated or unreliable.)
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/ 

The late 30s do show a strong and quite sudden decline and this may well have continued into the 40s when presumably mapping was disrupted by the war.
However it soon recovered again.

Also it should be noted that September is not available and it is likely that some years saw substantial decrease from the August situation - which one might hazard a guess was based on data gathered over days if not weeks, and intended to show a general picture of minimum extent.

Well here is a quote from one of the links you managed to find all by yourself.

In early March 1959, she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times.

 

The article I was reading was quoting from an American journalist Ed Herlihy, the transcript :-

 

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.

 

Thanks.  I did see that but it referred to March 1959, which isn't "Winter 1958".  The earlier journey was conducted without surfacing.

Anyway, I remain unconvinced - as I have since these historical accounts and maps were first aired here - that they tell us anything significant about the state of the ice.  As John has commented, even with solid ice there are areas of thin(ner) ice that might be opened up for brief periods.

A little less attitude would be nice, by the way.

I understand why you might be on your guard of material from WUWT, but, the source of these maps is given and confirm generally what I have seen in climate literature many years ago.

I don't know if I remember correctly, but, the subs broke through ice about 10 feet thick (thats what I recall, anyway - because I was very impressed.)

Edit: Read the link now and it seems to be a lead - The article mentions 10ft but??......... quote: If the sub rose too slowly, it could drift away from the opening.

What caught my eye though was the reference to a polar bear climbing onto the ice - they don't go far from the ice edge because that where their food is.

Must have been some lead and the open waters must, imo, been extensive. How extensive?

Here is an interesting post from the link

 Graham P Davis • 2 years ago  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. The above picture may have been from one of those.  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. Later, many of the crew gathered for a service at which the ashes of Sir Hubert Wilkins were sprinkled in the wind. The temperature during this service was -26F (-32C).

                                                                                          .....................

Thin ice - 0.6m?

This is the directory with historical full size scans of the ice conditions.
(for those implying that because it had been mentioned on WUWT it must be somehow mischievously manipulated or unreliable.)
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/ 

The late 30s do show a strong and quite sudden decline and this may well have continued into the 40s when presumably mapping was disrupted by the war.
However it soon recovered again.

Also it should be noted that September is not available and it is likely that some years saw substantial decrease from the August situation - which one might hazard a guess was based on data gathered over days if not weeks, and intended to show a general picture of minimum extent.

As John kindly points out no idiot would try and surface a sub under 'normal' ( for that era) ice thickness!!! Pleeeeese, just tihnk about it!

This seasons 'Crakopalypse' event is noted due to it's 'unusual' nature. Leads are common place in the basin , some are predictable and have been used by both wildlife and resident populations for generations?

The sight of any sub ,finding the sub 3m ice to surface through, is not 'News' but to pull it forward as such does raise questions of the poster?

EDIT: Why does Neven use such an image as his old avatar????

And when you say "for that era" -  you are implying thicker ice, yes?

As John kindly points out no idiot would try and surface a sub under 'normal' ( for that era) ice thickness!!! Pleeeeese, just tihnk about it!

This seasons 'Crakopalypse' event is noted due to it's 'unusual' nature. Leads are common place in the basin , some are predictable and have been used by both wildlife and resident populations for generations?

The sight of any sub ,finding the sub 3m ice to surface through, is not 'News' but to pull it forward as such does raise questions of the poster?

EDIT: Why does Neven use such an image as his old avatar????

As John kindly points out no idiot would try and surface a sub under 'normal' ( for that era) ice thickness!!! Pleeeeese, just tihnk about it!

This seasons 'Crakopalypse' event is noted due to it's 'unusual' nature. Leads are common place in the basin , some are predictable and have been used by both wildlife and resident populations for generations?

The sight of any sub ,finding the sub 3m ice to surface through, is not 'News' but to pull it forward as such does raise questions of the poster?

EDIT: Why does Neven use such an image as his old avatar????

I don't believe anything from the 50's could be classified as news, it's patently a 'non sequitar'. It wasn't claimed to be news, you've made that claim above, but please do tell what questions it raises of the poster? 

By posting the image of the submarine (I could have posted images of three submarines together on the surface from 1986 and 1987 at the pole as well) I was trying to illustrate the point that it's not unprecedented to find little or no ice well within the Arctic.

 I would like to see the evidence to back up this wild claim made earlier.

There has never been so little ice in the last 2000 years estimated.

Something that has intrigued me is this word 'Crakopalypse', I can't find it anywhere in a dictionary, online or elsewhere, don't tell me it's a made up word used with the intention to engender more confusion and hysteria? A post earlier in this thread raised the question about what people from Net-Weather and Neven think about TWO, quite.  

Have a look at this article again (it was totally ignored when I posted it in April) if submarines aren't to your taste. I still say we haven't seen anything unprecedented.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/is-the-north-pole-going-to-melt-entirely-asks-newspaper-in-1923/#more-12271

Here is a scientific paper uses available data to investigate the changes in arctic sea-ice extent  through the 20 th century, shows a decline throughout accelerating towards the end

ftp://psc.apl.washington.edu/incoming/PolarFridays/2-walsh_2001.pdf

Here is a scientific paper uses available data to investigate the changes in arctic sea-ice extent  through the 20 th century, shows a decline throughout accelerating towards the end

ftp://psc.apl.washington.edu/incoming/PolarFridays/2-walsh_2001.pdf

And how do you think those graphics would appear if they went up to last season?

Here is a scientific paper uses available data to investigate the changes in arctic sea-ice extent  through the 20 th century, shows a decline throughout accelerating towards the end

ftp://psc.apl.washington.edu/incoming/PolarFridays/2-walsh_2001.pdf

The Arctic maps are are observational data and strongly suggest that there hasn't been "a decline throughout the 20th century" Although that has been the overall effect.

Would you not accept those maps, as observational data, Tom?

Weird coincidence, I've just posted a link to a video where that exact quote is used in the other Arctic thread.

I see IJIS is back up and running ( minus the lost data) and we still appear to have the normal 'rapid decline' in the ice levels that we have come to expect from June.....but this time with a long lived cyclone still spinning it's merry way over central regions?

Here is a scientific paper uses available data to investigate the changes in arctic sea-ice extent  through the 20 th century, shows a decline throughout accelerating towards the end

ftp://psc.apl.washington.edu/incoming/PolarFridays/2-walsh_2001.pdf

I think Richard Feynman got it right when he said something like "no matter how beautiful the theory, if there is one piece of observational data that doesn't fit, then the theory is wrong"

The Arctic maps are are observational data and strongly suggest that there hasn't been "a decline throughout the 20th century" Although that has been the overall effect.

Would you not accept those maps, as observational data, Tom?

 

I suppose you could argue about the significance of the decline in the early part of the 20 th century in isolation  but there has certainly been an overall decline accelerating towards the end of the century.