1856 : “‘vast open iceless Polar Sea”

http://trove.nla.gov.au/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to 1856 : “‘vast open iceless Polar Sea”

  1. gator69 says:

    All of this warm water, high winds and open seas is causing the polar bear to exhibit ‘unprecedented’ behaviour…

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,

    THIS post made me laugh out loud actually.
    Have I mentioned that you should read the ACTUAL article? Here is a long quote from the actual article. ( I must admit it is POSSIBLE that REISS went back in time to add this part just to embarrass people who do not bother to check sources)
    I do have some free time available this month if you want to hire me to make sure you don’t post things that contradict your narrative. Doesn’t it concern you at all that none of your followers ever question even the most obvious gaffs you make?

    “in the first ploce,1 venture to suggest tdat the term open Polar Sea applied to la- titudes of 82 degrees and 83 degrees N, can have only a mere relative and vague, uncertain meaning, because, in these lati- tudes, any part of the sea, however narrow and ice-bound, may be open at times, and no part of it, however extensive and deep, can be entirely and always free from ice. The term is more in its place when used in a comparative or circumscribed sense, as» for instance, when saying that Baffin’s iBay is an open (ot more open) sea as com ‘pared to Wellington Channel, and the lat- her, again, with its northerly outlets, an>pen (or more open) channel than Banks strait or Prince of Wales Channel. The
    term ‘ open Polar Sea, no doubt will be rightly understood in its bearings and im- port, in each individual case so used, by persons accustomed to a critical view of such subjects, but for general use it leads to much misconception, and is altogether
    perfluous when, as in speaking of Dr Kane’s open sea, the epithet ‘ iceless ‘ is added to it. There can be no doubt the precise meaning of the latter, for it implies a sea entirely free from ice, whereas the term ‘open’ sea by no means excludes the existence of vast quantities of that frigid article. As to the term ‘iceless’ sea, it conveys, in this instance, altogether an er- roneous meaning, such as Dr Kane proba bly did not intend to impart to it, for in peaking of that Northern Sea under this lenomination, he and his companions de cribe the nature of that sea at the parti- cular time when they saw it, and these statements I have not the slightest ground or wish to doubt or disbelieve. But I do most decidedly “doubt ‘ it to be a perma- nently iceless sea, notwithstanding the ex traordinary fact of continued north wind having failed to bring any ice into it. Such an occurrence only shows how effectually the ice formed during the previous winter may be swept away by the currents out of a sea situated even underjhe most northern latitudes.

    • The poor bears. They must have all drowned.

      Do you think there is a lot of land at 90N?

    • DirkH says:

      “Such an occurrence only shows how effectually the ice formed during the previous winter may be swept away by the currents out of a sea situated even underjhe most northern latitudes.”

      Thanks, Tony, for showing that people in 1856 were too smart for the alarmist claptrap spread by our media these days; understanding that it’s the movement of the ice that makes the difference.

      • DirkH says:

        Looks like Dr. Kane was yesteryears equivalent to todays alarmists, and Paterman was the skeptic. So, Tony, you proudly discovered a skeptic voice of 1856. But had you been present in 1856 you would have taken the side of Dr. Kane, probably protesting against the introduction of the railway because it kills the polar bears.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Dirk,

        very good, you take the quote that in detail contradicts steve’s post, and find one element that is totally irrelevant and then change the argument to an issue that every scientist , skeptic or not is well aware of, and has nothing to do with global warming.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Dirk,

        Um. No. Paterman was just explaining rationally what Kirk meant so that uniformed people would not misunderstand Kirk’s quote. I find it much more likely that they both had very similar views, and you are inventing a fantasy scenario with three people you know nothing about.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        I think you are refering to a different post. As in this case. the chronology is this.
        1. Steve posts a link to an article where he has done a search for specific terms.
        2. Posts the actual content of the article which completely contradicts Steve post.
        3. Steve and friends frantically come up with bizarre excuses and irrelevent explanations.
        4. tony ponts out this tactic
        5. repeat 3 and 4 until tony has to get some work done.

  3. the actual content of the article which completely contradicts Steve post

    Yes, about that. Here (quoted in full by me below this sentence) is the part of Steve’s post which is clearly contradicted by “Tony Duncan”:

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Stark,

      you forgot to hit the paste function. Here is just one part.

      “The term ‘ open Polar Sea, no doubt will be rightly understood in its bearings and im- port, in each individual case so used, by persons accustomed to a CRITICAL VIEW of such subjects, but for general use it leads to much MISCONCEPTION, and is altogether
      perfluous when, as in speaking of Dr Kane’s open sea, the epithet ‘ ICELESS ‘ is added to it. There can be no doubt the precise meaning of the latter, for it IMPLIES A SEA ENTIRELY DEVOID OF ICE, whereas the term ‘open’ sea by no means excludes the EXISTENCE OF VAST QUANTITIES of that frigid article.

      no need to thank me!

      • Dearest Tony Duncan,

        You forgot to past in the part of Steve’s post that is actually contradicted. Everything else you have posted is spurious at best, or just an outright attempt at distraction.

        Oh, wait. I can see it right down there at the bottom of your post: nothing.

        Thank you for clearing this up for us.

  4. suyts says:

    Lol, Tony, Dirk’s observation is entirely relevant to the larger discussion.

    Let’s go up a bit higher in the article….

    “As to the term ‘iceless’ sea, it conveys, in this instance, altogether an er- roneous meaning, such as Dr Kane proba bly did not intend to impart to it, for in peaking of that Northern Sea under this lenomination, he and his companions de cribe the nature of that sea at the parti- cular time when they saw it, and these statements I have not the slightest ground or wish to doubt or disbelieve. But I do most decidedly “doubt ‘ it to be a perma- nently iceless sea,……”

    It is simply astonishing! It seems Mr. A Paterman is clearing some misconceptions up about the nature of the sea ice. Apparently Dr. Kane had viewed that northern sea in a state devoid of ice. But, Mr. Paterman clarifies that this lack of ice is temporary. He also states how fragile the temporary state of the ice always is. That regardless of the previous winter’s state of being, that the next year can easily lose the ice. The amazing part of all of this is that many of us have come to the same conclusion without the benefit of direct observation while Mr Paterman came to the same conclusion without the benefit of modern technology!

    Regardless of intent, it is a wonderful gem Steve has pulled from the rough. It is a bit melancholy, though. It is difficult to fathom, but apparently it is true nonetheless, our understanding of the nature of the sea ice has not advanced in over 150 years!

    There is something else that needs clarified. The “Northern Sea” Paterman refers to is improperly capitalized by today’s standards. Given the location of Kane’s party in the article, they’re location would be in this area…. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg/220px-Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg.png
    (Using the names of locations and latitudes describe) It’s meaning is the sea, which is of the north, rather than the Northern Sea which is east of England and Scotland.

    So, the arctic was mostly ice free in the not so distant past! Nearly like it is today!! Especially noting that a prevailing wind from the north failed to produce any ice floes! The area is described as “teaming with animal life, great numbers of herbivorous and other animals and birds feeding on the shores.” ….. later on, he goes on to say, “I find similar observations recorded by that great arctic navigator and acute observer. Sir Edward Perry…. “

    An absolute treasure! ….. more to say later……

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Suyts,

      I was hoping you would not comment on this.
      “So, the arctic was mostly ice free in the not so distant past! Nearly like it is today!” You can determine this from one observation in Ellesmere island from one summer? Of course it IS possible the arctic was mostly ice free if this was the only observation from that time or if the others from this time all confirm little or no sea ice.

      The other possibility is that there are often years when parts of the arctic are ice free, and this says absolutely nothing of any relevance to the current situation. Unless you have quotes from Hansen saying that in the early part of the century the Arctic was always completely covered in ice even in the summer, this observation has no general meaning and in no way supports the agenda that the arctic had similar or less ice earlier in the 20th century than now.
      The only “amazing” thing about this is that Steve, you and others manage to take information that sounds like one thing, and when someone uses the actual text from the link to point out that it is completely wrong, those who can only accept one possibility still try to turn it into the opposite of what it says.
      Kudos!

      • DirkH says:

        “The other possibility is that there are often years when parts of the arctic are ice free, and this says absolutely nothing of any relevance to the current situation. ”

        Yes indeed. So you *ARE* a closet skeptic after all; not being too alarmed about a summer ice melt and all, right? Hope i got it right this time.

      • suyts says:

        Now I’m hurt. Tony, I will admit to not being very clear, you shouldn’t take that to mean I would make statements without support. Before we get to all of that, I should note, that your “actual text” is coming from a source that believed the bodies of water discussed was two separate seas…… distinguished by an imagined land mass dissecting the north pole! More on that in a second……

        First, there is much to take away from that one time observation that doesn’t directly speak to ice extent, but upon consideration will tell you what one needs to know…….

        Herbivores? This infers vegetation. Did you click on the link I provided showing the location of this party? This is, apparently, similar to what Sir Edward Perry reported. It wasn’t so much the condition of the ice, but rather the environment described.

        As to the similarities, they were very similar…. except flipped.
        “You can determine this from one observation in Ellesmere island from one summer?”……. well, you can determine much, but it wasn’t from one summer and one observation, rather it was from 2 summers and 2 observations separated only by many years. You’ll note that early in the article, the party had to disembark……. because of ice on the east side of the island.

        Read Mr. A Paterman’s description of the area we would call the arctic off the shore of the Eurasia landmass. (Between Spitsbergen and Siberia.) The “seas” are so different, our Mr. Paterman believed these to be two separate bodies of water. He articulates a well-reasoned, nearly impassioned argument for this opinion. Why? Because of the ever changing environment of arctic! Now, as to the similarities….. in the article, the arctic is described as two separate areas! One, an inhospitable area which would be the part of the ocean that borders Eurasia. Contrast that with the vast ice-less area described not only by Kane, but also Perry and apparently others, too! So, going up to the tip of Greenland, one side was virtually ice free, and the other side full of ice, so much so, that the impression was that this was not one sea, but two. Now, look at this……… http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticice/nowcast/ice2011080218_2011080800_035_arcticice.001.gif

        The same, but flipped. This article, in conjunction with other well established historical commentaries, can and does make the argument of less ice in the arctic than today.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        I don’t see how you can come to ANY conclusion about the arctic as a whole from what you describe. One can certainly state with confidence that the decriptions you bring up indicate that the arctic does not melt in the same way in the same places at all times. No one has ever said otherwise, as far as I can tell. What exactly in this description contradicts anything that arctic scientists have said about the arctic past or present?
        What the text of the article DOES contradict verbatim is that at this time the arctic was iceless. It indicates that this one particular area was iceless. Again if you can find a quote from any scientist who has said that until the late 20th century the arctic was always completely ice covered in every location even during the summer, this would be very strong evidence that he (or she) was completely wrong. But since any scientist studying ice, who received any kind of degree would likely have had to have read SOME history of the arctic, and all of them show periods of ice free conditions in parts of the arctic at many times in the past.

        Again, what was most fun about this was seeing the post and knowing Steve had not bothered to read the article, and then finding in the main body of the article a long detailed warning against doing EXACTLY what Steve was doing. I am sorry but all your rationalizations and irrelevant comments can never take that small moment of joy away from me.

      • DirkH says:

        ” I am sorry but all your rationalizations and irrelevant comments can never take that small moment of joy away from me.”

        It warms my heart to see that a warmist had a small moment of joy in his pityful, angst-ridden existence. But there will still not be a global agreement on reducing CO2 emissions. And we’re all gonna fry, FRY i tell ya.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Dirk,

        I haven’t noticed any warmists commenting on this post. Did ill wind write soemthing and then delete it?

      • suyts says:

        “What exactly in this description contradicts anything that arctic scientists have said about the arctic past or present?” That we’ve changed it in any way. Then as today, we had discussions of ice vs ice free conditions. Then, as now we had discussions of the winds being responsible for ice loss. Then as today, we had discussions of probability of permanence in being ice free. Nothing has changed except the level of alarm. Look at the maps I provided and understand where the explicitly stated “ice free” state was. That ain’t Barrow that we’re talking about.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        No it is not Barrow. Sorry. i was not aware that if parts of Ellesmere are ice free that means the rest of the arctic is as well.
        But as usual you are all missing what is so funny. STEVE posted an article about an ice free arctic and almost the entire body of the article is about how this is not the case and the fact that the ice is such an impenetrable barrier that we should use submarines as commercial transport vehicles to get around the problem!

      • suyts says:

        lol, “But as usual you are all missing what is so funny. STEVE posted an article ……..”……. you seem singularly preoccupied to further the discussion much more, but there is information in that article which is worthwhile……

        No, the NW part of Ellesmere being ice free doesn’t mean the rest of the arctic is as well. And, that’s not what I stated, nor implied. But given its latitude, there would be reason to believe there was much less ice than today. And certainly, it shows that the ice in place today would not have been there then.

        As to my missing anything…… of course, I didn’t miss it, I just thought it impolite to grieve my host. That said, you guys seem to enjoy the back and forth, so……have at it.

  5. Once again, a certain drama queen manages to miss an actual question posed by someone.
    Once again his response is to repost the same cut & paste nonsense.

    Once again, for our reading impaired friend “Tony Duncan”: what exact words in Steve’s post are contradicted?

    • rw says:

      You know that something strange is going on when he manages to post as much text as there was in the original article.

  6. J Calvert N says:

    That article was about as comprehensible, concise and to-the-point as the Athanasian Creed.

  7. Blade says:

    The article is getting some corrections now for the newspaper scanning errors. So far the complete text (one single paragraph!) …

    THE ARCTIC REGIONS.

    Mr A. Paterman communicates the fol- lowing to the Athenaeum:— “The recent return of Dr Kane has made the world ring with the announcement of his disco- very of a ‘vast open iceless Polar Sea.’ The chief result of his voyage may be stated in a few words thus:— Having reached Smith Sound he found further progress by vessel impossible, owing to a body of pack-ice of the heaviest description blocking up the strait. He therefore put his brig into win- ter quarters in a bay on the coast of Smith Sound, in latitude 78 deg. 44 min. north, (probably the indentation between Pelham Point and Stafford Head of Inglefield) and from this point explored the region east- ward and northward in sledges. The re- ports hitherto published in the American papers are not quite clear as to the precise position of the region discovered ; it ap- pears, however, that the arm of the sea forming the continuation of Smith Sound extends almost due east as far as 60 min. west long., whence it is deflected in a NN W direction, until, in lat. 82 min. north, it expands into an extensive sea ‘entirely free from ice,’ at the time when Dr Kane beheld it. It further appears that the re- gion between 78 minutes and 82 minutes of latitude forming the chief scene of Frank- lin’s search further south. In proceeding over this extensive and barren region Dr Kane’s party was not a little astonished in noticing a gradual increase of temperature the further they went to the northward, until at last their progress was arrested by that vast sea already mentioned, extending further than the eye could reach, teeming with animal life, great numbers of herbivo- rous and other animals, and birds feeding on its shores or roaming in fearless indif- ference in the neighborhood. ‘A north wind, fifty-two hours in duration, failed to bring any drift-ice into this area.’ Those conversant with the geography of the Arctic Regions will probably agree with me if I, in the first place, venture to suggest that the term open Polar Sea applied to la- titudes of 82 degrees and 83 degrees N, can have only a mere relative and vague, uncertain meaning, because, in these lati- tudes, any part of the sea, however narrow and ice-bound, may be open at times, and no part of it, however extensive and deep, can be entirely and always free from ice. The term is more in its place when used in a comparative or circumscribed sense, as, for instance, when saying that Baffin’s Bay is an open (or more open) sea as com- pared to Wellington Channel, and the lat- ter, again, with its northerly outlets, an open (or more open) channel than Banks Strait or Prince of Wales Channel. The term ‘ open Polar Sea,’ no doubt will be rightly understood in its bearings and im- port, in each individual case so used, by persons accustomed to a critical view of such subjects, but for general use it leads to much misconception, and is altogether superfluous when, as in speaking of Dr Kane’s open sea, the epithet ‘ iceless ‘ is added to it. There can be no doubt the precise meaning of the latter, for it implies a sea entirely free from ice, whereas the term ‘open’ sea by no means excludes the existence of vast quantities of that frigid article. As to the term ‘iceless’ sea, it conveys, in this instance, altogether an er- roneous meaning, such as Dr Kane proba- bly did not intend to impart to it, for in speaking of that Northern Sea under this denomination, he and his companions de- cribe the nature of that sea at the parti- cular time when they saw it, and these statements I have not the slightest ground or wish to doubt or disbelieve. But I do most decidedly “doubt ‘ it to be a perma- nently iceless sea, notwithstanding the ex- traordinary fact of continued north wind having failed to bring any ice into it. Such an occurrence only shows how effectually the ice formed during the previous winter may be swept away by the currents out of a sea situated even under the most northern latitudes. I find a similar observation re- corded by that great arctic navigator and acute observer. Sir Edward Parry, in his Narrative, 1827, p. 127. It relates to the sea north of Spitzbergen (where Captain Phipps had previously found an impenetra- ble barrier of boundless pack ice), as seen after his return to that country from his adventureus boat voyage towards the North, Pole, about tbe latter end of August :— ” As the wind now blew so much upon the shore, I was in momentary expectation of seeing some ice come in ; but we were agreeably , surprised to find that none appeared, This circumstance appeared to us , the more remarkable, from the extraordi- nary rapidity with which, in the month of Jue the^very lightest air from the west Ward brought the drift ice in upon the land, rendering their shores quite inacces- sible in the course of a few hours.’ I have entered into these remarks on the meaning of the term ‘ open’, and ‘iceless,’ as it seems to me that a great deal of confusion, doubt, and misconception has arisen in Arctic geography, from different interpretations of these terms. But while expressing the foregoing objections to their ambiguous and unrestricted use, l am-bound to own myself at a loss for another word which, in my humble opinion, would form a precise denomination for a sea such as that discovered by Dr Kane. The Russian word ‘ Polynia,’ means spaces of open water within the icy seas, and is nearly the equi- valent for the English ”Lane,” lanes of of open water. Unfrozen sea would al- ready be nearer the mark, namely, a sea that never freezes entirely over. Reading the reports of Dr Kane’s voyage with due regard to the restrictive meaning of the terms in which they are framed, it is be- yond all doubt that he discovered an ex- tensive Polar Sea, which is never entirely frozen over. This evidence of an unfrozen sea, and a comparatively mild climate, with kindred phenomena, in latitudes ranging from 82 degrees northward, is a full corro- boration of the discovery of a similar sea further to the eastward, by Parry, Wran- gell, and others ; but it is still more deci- sive in its bearing than either of these, be- cause Dr Kane’s sea lies in close contiguity and on the northern side of the most northern land yet discovered, and a land be it remembered, of the most dismal de- scription, whereas the sea reached by Sir Edward Parry, in lat. 82 ½ degrees N. is simply the continuation of the Atlantic swept by powerful polar currents with the influence of warm Gulf Stream in its flank, while Wrangell’s Sea lies in latitude six degrees further south. Dr Kane’s Polar Sea is the most interesting, as it seems pretty evident that it cannot be connected with the great Arctic Sea, or what I would call the real Polar Basin, namely the sea between Spitsbergen and Siberia. And here I may be permitted to refer briefly to Captain Inglefield’s voyage to Smith Sound, three years ago. The view that gentleman took at the time in announcing that, by entering Whale Sound and Smith Sound, he believed that he had ‘ discovered and entered the Polar Sea,’ through which he thought, ‘ he would have been able to push in the direction of Behring’s Strait, had not a gale arisen,’ &c, was strongly com- bated by me then (see ” Athenaeum, Nos. 1,309 and 1,311) and I endeavored to show that such a view was fallacious, and based upon no tenable grounds 1 concluded my remarks in the following words (No. 1,311 p. 1,359)—” Thus it appears that the rea- sons assigned for the theory of a commu- nication between Baffin’s Bay and the Polar Basin are slight in comparison with those which tell against it. Greenland may, and very likely does, contract about the 80th parallel ; it may there become only a nar- row neck of land ; but that land, there is reason to conjecture extends a great way in a northerly direction towards Behring’s Strait, and it is my firm conviction that navigators entering the sea to the north of Baffin’s Bay, in the hope of reaching the Polar Basin, would find a mere cul-de-sac, not even connected with the sea to the north of Wellington Channel.’ These views have, I think, been pretty closely corroborated by Dr Kane’s voyage, he has found that Smith Sound ‘ terminates in a gulf. The reasons against Captain Ingle- field’s theory hold just as good now as then; and, therefore, I am inclined to think that if no stronger ground be adduced to esta- blish the insularity of Greenland by a channel under the 80th parallel, than the existence in that direction of a mighty gla- cier, it is open to much doubt. That gla- cier, in all probability, rests on land, and no channel has ever been in that locality, or else some of the immense masses of drift-wood known to exist on the east side of Greenland would surely have found its Way to the arm of the sea explored by Dr Kane. No positive or direct statement is made ‘as to the total absence of this inte- resting object in the report before me, however lengthy and circumstantial they are in other respects, but by indirect evi- dence it seems beyond ¡all doubt that driftwood is entirely absent in those waters ; the want of fuel is continually complained of, and it became the source of the greatest hardships to Dr Kane’s party; ”during *the winter fuel having become short Dr Kane was compelled to ??????? the ?????, inner planking, ?????, and finally the very floors to the cabins in which he himself and officers lodged, into fuel.’ Again, ‘the Esquimaux in that region had no hayacks, and the few sledges they pos- sessed were made almost exclusively out of walrus-tusks, and not of wood. It is quite clear, from all these particulars, that no driftwood reaches those waters,’ which further renders it all but certain that no connection exists between them and the great Polar Basin, namely, that sea, in re- ference to which Sir Edward Parry, from personal experience, emphatically declares —‘ A ship might have sailed in the latitude of 82 deg, almost without touching a piece, of ice.’ (Parry’s Narrative, p. 148.) But, however this may be, the truth of the grand geographical feature of an unfrozen Polar Sea to the north of the most northern land yet discovered cannot be for a moment doubted. In considering the bearing ¡of Dr Kane’s discovery on Arctic Geography, we are led to the North Pole itself, as the point around which all others in the Arctic Regions are naturally grouped. The question is, What is the nature of that interesting spot? Whe- ther land or sea (I am inclined to think the latter,) does it or does it mot comprise the maximum of ice, and snow, and cold, as it does from the mathematical centre of the Frigid Zone ? And do, in a corres- ponding manner, the lines of latitude indi- cate the progressive ratio of decrease of the temperature and other phenomena fol- lowing in its train ? It has been the ge- neral, and perhaps still is the more pre- vailing opinion that such is the case. It so happens that the expeditions in search of Franklin have, most of them extended to latitudes between 70 degrees and 77 de- grees N., and only in a few cases beyond that. They have in these latitudes, found a labyrinthic system of clumps of lands and islands connected together by narrow channels, full of ice and glaciers most dif- ficult and hazardous for navigation. It has been generally inferred, if the Arctic Regions between 70 degrees and 77 deg. North latitude are of so dreary, so difficult and dangerous a character, how much more so must they be further north and under the Pole itself. So much did this impres- sion prevail that, whom Captain Penny, in 1851, discovered, north of Wellington Channel, a sea more open, more extensive, and with more animal life than those arms of the sea to the south of it, it was actually disbelieved at first by many of the prin- ciple officers of the searching squadron. Then, again, when Captain Inglefield re- ported the discoveries he had made at the top of Baffin’s Bay, it was said that ‘ they did not appear to give much promise of Elysian fields and oasis near the Pole, Others had even calculated how much the mean animal temperature at the Pole must be as that compared with that of southerly latitudes. In vain did the re- sults of the memorable journeys of Sir Edward Parry, Wrangell, Anjou, and others, point to the fallacy of such views ; the favourite theory was still clung to. Sir Edward Parry’s journey to the North Pole was undertaken, as is well known, on the supposition that Captain Phipp’s ‘ main or heavy ice ‘ extended to the North Pole ; but the further he went up the less ‘ indi- cation of it could be seen ;’ and, at last, under the highest latitude reached, namely, 82 degrees 40 minutes 23 seconds (at one time probably 45 minutes) ‘ go small was the ice around them, that they were obli- ged to halt for the night, at two a.m., on the 25th, being upon the only piece in sight, in any direction, on which they could ven- ture to trust the boats while they rested. Such was the ice in 82£ degree. So Wran- gell and Anjou, the higher they went the surer they were in finding, at last, the ‘ wide immeasurable ocean before them. Dr Kane’s discovery is a full corrobora- tion of what is indicated in the foregoing, namely that towards the North Pole the temperature, animal and vegetable life, the open state of the sea, &c, do not uniformly or regularly decrease,- in short that these features of the Arctic Regions depend much less on the configuration, extent, and ar- rangement of land and water, and the oceanic currents. Thus, an extensive sea, exposed to the mighty currents running from the Siberian shores into the Atlantic will, even the Pole itself, be clearer of ice and more open, it will possess a tempera- ture higher, organic life more developed and abundant than the ice-bound choked up labyrinth of the chief scene of the Frank- lin search 29 degrees 8. of the North Pole. Thus, the only Polar sea accessible by ves- sels, and undoubtedly, as fit for navigation as Baffin’s Bay, remains, that beyond Spitz- bergen and Novaya Zemlaya. What significant lessons does Dr Kane’s adventurous voyage again convey ? By almost su- perhuman efforts he only reached 82½ deg. of latitude, while by the ship he could not possibly get any further than 78¾ deg. whereas that same latitude, 82½ deg. on the sea of Spitzbergen, has been reached again and again, in former as well as in re- cent times with comparative ease. And nothing is more natural, for in the Spitz- bergen Sea ice navigation only commences about “the same latitude where Dr Kane’s vessel came to a full stop, namely, between 78 deg. and 79 deg. N. latitude. This very summer several Norwegian whalers, among others the schooner AEolus, from Bergen, have reached the latitude of 82 deg. N. of Smi??????? ?????? ????? Successful in the fishing. The AEolus became full in two or three days, and reached Ber- gen from that high latitude, 82 deg. in 11 days ! My views on Arctic Geography, first submitted to public notice in the Athenaeum nearly four years ago, have not only been controverted, but more and more corroborated by recent research; and I shall conclude by declaring my conviction, that through the Sea of Spitzbergen the North Pole will one day be reached, and that with much less danger and difficulty than has attended most Arctic voyages that have not gone beyond the latitude of 75 deg. North.”

  8. gator69 says:

    Ice melts. Big deal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s