From Woody's Couch

This blog post is part of the Frozen Friday Series, an A-Z journey of the Polar Archives.  Each week, we will feature some aspect of the history of polar exploration with a blog post written by our student authors.

Before his second expedition to Greenland, Robert Peary commented “The life up there under the Pole is terribly hard. We will be as much out of touch with the world as we would on some other planet. Some of us more than likely will never return.”[i] For innumerable polar explorers this proved to be too true—the scenes of their triumphs would become their tombs. Sometimes even the best sacrificed their lives to the hostile environment. In 1928, Roald Amundsen, greatest Polar explorer of his time and the first man to reach the South Pole in 1911, flew into the Arctic on a rescue mission and was never seen again.

No exploration is risk-free. One does not simply wander into a new land, hoping that all goes well. Polar expeditions hold their own special types of dangers and challenges. The stereotypical features of Polar Regions—the snow, ice and cold—prove to have a greater impact than is often expected. When explorers get into trouble there, seldom is anyone coming to help. A rescue team faces as much or more danger than the explorer they are trying to save. Admiral Richard Byrd understood this and refused to radio his companions when he found himself alone with carbon monoxide poisoning miles away from his base camp. He did not want them to risk their lives trying to save his.

The perpetually shifting ice-floes that surround the poles create one of the main threats posed to explorers. No ship or airplane can stand against a massive iceberg. Shifting ice can trap or crush a ship, preventing an expedition from even landing in their predetermined location, as explorer Earnest Shackleton and his Imperial trans-Antarctic expedition would discover to their misery.

In 1914, Shackleton headed to Antarctica with plans for “the first crossing of the last continent.”[ii] Soon after reaching Antarctic waters, however, Shackleton’s ship, the Endurance, became trapped in the ice pack. Like the Belgica before it, the ship and its crew survived a long, sun-free winter on the ice (where, through a mirage caused by the atmosphere, the crew saw the sun set twice in one day). The ship was not saved by the spring thaw like the Belgica, however. The newly mobile ice-floes smashed into the ship until it was completely destroyed.

Miraculously, Shackleton’s entire crew survived by crossing the melting ice and floating in lifeboats first to Elephant Island and then to a whaling station on South Georgia. The expedition’s epic quest to cross the continent ended without any member setting foot on Antarctic land.

Polar exploration was no safer for men on foot, who found themselves at the mercy of the perpetually shifting substance under their feet. Leads, which are channels of water caused by splitting or melting ice, can wreak havoc on an expedition. It prevents explorers from following their designated paths and can delay or end an expedition altogether. Arctic explorer Robert Peary, first claimant to the North Pole, seemed particularly unlucky in regards to leads.  Several times the inability to cross leads forced Peary to postpone or end his expeditions early. During Peary’s last expedition to the North Pole (1908-1909), leads developed in the ice around his camp and several inhabited igloos floated away toward open water. The stranded men were rescued when their ice island collided with the mainland. At other times thin ice could simply crack underneath a man’s feet and plunge him into the polar water, often fatally. In Antarctica, killer whales sometimes smash through thin ice (although thin is relative; killer whales can smash through over three feet of ice) to get seals. One of Shackleton’s men was nearly attacked by killer whales while traveling via dog sled over a thin patch of ice.

Traitorous ice is not the only threat, however. The air and temperature alone try to kill explorers.  “In Antarctica, shelter is more vital than food. Intense cold may kill more swiftly than any deprivation, save that of air.”[iii] Surprisingly, this is not because of the inherently cold air, but the persistent winds. In still air, the human body produces a small ‘bubble’ of warm air around itself, better allowing the body to maintain its temperature. Any wind blows this ‘bubble’ away and lowers the body temperature rapidly. Even burying under the snow is better than facing the wind. This wind, which is controlled more by the circular shape of the continent than by weather patterns, also causes blizzards. These blizzards can throw tons—literally—of snow into the air and proceed to bombard travelers and buildings with it.

Because of this, any shelter is better than none. Typically, expeditions would establish a base camp close to a coast and build permanent houses or igloos there. While traveling across the ice, away from their home base, explorers often take tents as a light, portable shelter. In a pinch, though, nearly anything that kept an explorer out of the wind could be used. When he landed on Elephant Island, Shackleton flipped his rowboats upside down and used them as a shelter for his men. Most of Shackleton’s crew lived in these makeshift houses for over one hundred days, waiting for Shackleton’s return. During Robert Scott’s fatal expedition to the South Pole, six of his men spent their winter living in a hastily carved ice cave after exploring too far from camp. Even such marginal shelters probably saved their lives, if only temporarily.

As can be expected in these conditions—conditions that humans are not meant to survive in—the human body suffers extensively. Explorers can develop frostbite from the cold, scurvy from an inadequate diet, and polar anemia from lack of sunlight. With enough supplies and knowledge these problems can be overcome, but few are safe from their threat. Robert Peary spent twenty years in the Arctic and lost eight of his toes. Dr. Frederick Cook was actually one of the first to identify and moderate both scurvy and polar anemia. Cook correctly surmised that scurvy comes from a poor diet and that eating fresh meat would prevent it.

A final, rather less obvious danger of polar exploration is extreme boredom. The polar regions do not inherently provide entertainment. Instead, explorers brought books and cards, and sometimes even balls to play games on the ice. You can find more information on Polar entertainment here. These diversions not only served to entertain people, but they also kept morale up—particularly for those expeditions which became stuck on the ice.

Visit the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center Archival Program for more information about Richard Byrd, Frederick Cook or the many other polar expeditions held in our collection.

Written by Autumn Snellgrove and edited by John Hooton.

[i] True North, page 41

[ii] Reader’s Digest Antarctica, page 218

[iii] Reader’s Digest Antarctica, page 182

This blog post is part of the Frozen Friday Series, an A-Z journey of the Polar Archives.  Each week, we will feature some aspect of the history of polar exploration with a blog post written by our student authors.

Humanity has by and large completed the map. The Earth has now been effectively mapped out such that there are no major blank spaces labeled with the phrase ‘hic sunt dracones,’ or “here there be dragons.” We take for granted the globe as we know it today.  It is easy to forget what it might have been like to wonder what mysteries those unmapped regions held. Just what was beyond that vast amount of water? Could there be a whole new civilization? Prosperous cities with bustling streets? Paradise? Or could there actually be dragons? Imagination may have run wild in the minds of some, out pacing reason. Tales of far off unexplored lands must have been comparable to our contemporary science-fiction vis-à-vis space travel.

 

For most of human history, there was great speculation over a southern continent. This speculation and desire to find it lasted well after the founding of the United States of America. This Terra Australis Incognita (‘southern unknown land’) was conceived as early as the sixth century BCE by Greek philosophers such as Parmenides and Aristotle. The Greeks held that the world is divided into five parallel climate zones: a northern frigid zone, a northern temperate zone, a torrid zone, a southern temperate zone, and a southern frigid zone. Their world, the Mediterranean region and parts of Afro-Eurasia known to them, consisted of the lands in that northern temperate zone. To the south, there must be lands to ensure that the world is not ‘top heavy’. The north and south lands were thought to be divided by a torrid zone, an area of fire and monsters that split the world.[1]

These ideas of a southern continent persisted, but it was not until the age of European exploration that they were put to the test. As European explorers discovered foreign lands, they created a more complete map. Theories of the nature of the mysterious continent were put forth and ultimately disproved. Africa, long thought to be connected to Terra Australis Incognita, was proved not to be, as Bartholomew Diaz (1488) reached and Vasco da Gama (1498) rounded the Cape of Good Hope. South America too was thought to be connected to Terra Australis Incognita, but Ferdinand Magellan’s voyage through what would be called the Straights of Magellan (1519) and Francis Drakes’ voyage to where the Atlantic meets the Pacific south of Tierra del Fuego (1577) disproved that theory.[2] The idea that Terra Australis Incognita was connected to a larger landmass was killed in the late eighteenth century when Captain James Cook sailed south to find the mysterious continent. Cook spent over three years in unknown southern seas, hoping in vain to find it, unknowingly circling Antarctica. Cook returned to the United Kingdom with proof that Terra Australis Incognita could not be a parallel paradise that had once been dreamt up by the Greeks.[3]

By and large, Cook marked the end of humanity’s major ignorance of Antarctica. The chapter of Antarctic exploration dominated by myths finally closed. Although there would be further theories about the nature of the Antarctic interior, none would be quite like the mythos of Terra Australis Incognita. In the coming centuries, Antarctica would be revealed to mankind. In those chapters are the tales of Dr. Frederick Cook, Sir Hubert Wilkins, and Admiral Richard E. Byrd. Those and other accounts of polar exploration can be found at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center Archival Program. Some of those many stories are told here in other Frozen Fridays blog posts.

Written by John Hooton

[1] Antarctica, 2nd ed., s.v. “Terra Australis Incognita.” (Surry Hills: Reader’s Digest, 1990).

[2] Antarctica, “Terra Australis Incognita.”

[3] Antarctica, 2nd ed., s.v. “Antarctica Encircled.” (Surry Hills: Reader’s Digest, 1990).

This blog post is part of the Frozen Friday Series, an A-Z journey of the Polar Archives.  Each week, we will feature some aspect of the history of polar exploration with a blog post written by our student authors.

Over the next few weeks, we will be publishing one of four blogs highlighting portions of our interview with Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a leading glaciologist and outspoken climate scientist at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center. Each post will focus on a theme from the interview and feature highlights of that particular section.  A full transcript of the interview can be found here.

This week, we are focusing on  Climate Change, specifically Dr. Thompson’s reaction to the lack of action being taken in Washington D.C. I found his responses to be very surprising. His optimism is striking, especially given that he has been outspoken about the dangers of Climate Change for much of his career.

What would you say to someone who denies the existence of Climate Change, or considers it to be something that is happening naturally, something not caused by mankind that has happened in the past and will happen again?

First of all, I’d tell them that you’re absolutely right. Climate on this planet has changed through time. Yes, it has changed. There have been times when there has been no glaciers on this planet… Our time is different only in that there are seven point three billion people. We settled this planet in sailing ships so we built the cities and infrastructure on the coast. As climate warms and the sea level rises again, all that infrastructure is suddenly at risk…All of this is chemistry and physics.

Facts matter. Glaciers will melt and will continue to melt. Sea levels will rise. People will increasingly be adversely be affected by that change. Yes, it’s changed in the past, but the difference now is us. We will all be impacted. It’s not going away. It doesn’t matter who’s president, or at least who is not president. No matter what I believe, it’s fact.

I would say that I understand skeptics of climate change. If I worked for ExxonMobil and there was some way you could argue the quality of life on Earth has been changed by fossil fuels, that all the things that we are able to do with mechanized things that reduce the workload of human beings is fueled by fossil fuels, I’d argue it… We’ve known for over two hundred years that if you increase carbon dioxide, the temperature of the planet will rise. This is physics. Carbon dioxide is rising and the temperature of the planet is rising. This is not worth the change caused by technology… What’s happening now is that there are so many of us depending on fossil fuels that we are now seeing the adverse side of that advancement.

Four and a half years ago I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure. But fifteen years earlier, I had been diagnosed with exercise induced asthma… When it came down to a choice between believing if it was asthma or congestive heart failure, I went with the asthma. I told the doctor that he didn’t know what he was talking about because I had climbed the highest mountains on Earth. “The old heart was doing just fine, thank you very much!”

For two years I fought the idea that I had congestive heart failure because if I had put on my medical that I had congestive heart failure, I would not receive medical clearance to do what I do. I didn’t want to believe that. But at the end of the day, I was drilling in the Alps and one day I could not walk from my tent to the drill site. I couldn’t breathe. I ended up coming back. I was in the hospital for four months. I initially had a heart pump and I had a turbine put in the old heart which meant that for six months I operated on a computer. I had a drive line coming out of my side that drove the turbine. It was in my old heart and I wore a battery pack that powered the computer. At night I would plug into the wall. That was my key to life for six months. Fortunately, while I was on the heart transplant list, in May of 2012 I got a heart transplant and in 2015, drilling in the Western Kunluns, set a world record for a heart transplant patient drilling at 22 k feet. So, I just want to say there’s a bad gene. [Laughs].

(Here is an article about Dr. Thompson’s heart transplant)

The way that it relates to climate change is that it really does not matter what you wish for, you hope for, because at the end of the day it only matters what is. If you deal with what is, you can actually make life better than it was before. But you have to come to grips with the fact that you have to deal with it. So it is with climate change. It is just a matter of time because it will continue to worsen, the cost will continue to increase and as the human race we will deal with it because we won’t have any choice. So I kind of understand where these people are coming from, but on the other hand, it doesn’t matter! [Laughs] It’s physics and chemistry.

So, climate change is more than just rising tides. Could you describe what might happen?

Well, I think it’s happening and I think it’s bad in a way and good in a way. As a species, we are “here and now”. We are not very good at planning for the future and climate change is something that is going to happen fifty years from now, a hundred years from now. We are more concerned about what is going to happen today, tomorrow, maybe next week. With the climate changes that are already under way, you can talk to the mayor of Miami. He has no qualms that the sea level is rising. High-tide comes up through the streets, comes back up through the city. That’s going to increase on all coastal towns throughout the world. And that’s nothing. The extreme events, the major hurricanes, typhoons…all you have to do is look at the last five years and the number of super-storms and the number of destructions.

People that keep track of these are the big insurance companies, insurance companies that insure insurance companies. Nationwide, downtown, has records going back to 1980 of losses due to floods, droughts, storm damage, and these are increasing faster than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There’s a cost to climate change and we are paying that cost. Everyone who is paying insurance is paying that cost because what insurance does is distribute risk. But if you’re paying more for damage on coastal cities even though you live in Ohio, your insurance premium will go up because insurance companies are in the business to make money. So we all pay the price and right now it’s just that the companies that are causing the problem are not paying the costs of the problem. As long as they can get away with that, then we will continue to pay.

But these things will catch up. We will have no choice. Even in this country now, seventy percent of Americans believe that climate change is a real issue and that it’s a problem. At what stage in a democracy does this become so overwhelming to our representatives in Washington, that’s hard to say but I’d say that time is coming, that it’s close. There will be a real change…The system works, it’s just up and down. You have to look at the longer term, just like climate.

So many people get weather and climate get mixed up. You get an extreme winter and the number of emails I get in February that say, “It’s cold outside! It’s cold outside! Where’s Global Warming? Where’s Global Warming?” They aren’t looking at the world! When it’s cold here, it’s cold somewhere else. This is the variability that is in the system, You’ve got to have a thirty year average of that variability to have climate. It’s that trend that we have to keep our eyes on…

I grew up in West Virginia, so I know how important a pay check was to coal miners at the end of the week for their families. But I also know that the maximum number of coal miners were employed in 1924. The maximum amount of coal production in Virginia was in 2002. The number of miners has been decreasing since 1924 and they will continue to decrease. The problems in the coal industry have very little to do with the Environmental Protection Agency and everything to do with how cheap natural gas is. That’s an economic driver and you can’t legislate that back into existence…

I tell young people, “The future is in solar, it’s in wind, it’s in engineering jobs, better paying jobs, safer jobs and it will come.” That’s the beauty of this country. This country goes along because of local and regional governments. This is where people and the government actually interact. The changes are very basic and they are occurring all over. There will be blips, but they won’t stop the change.

You seem very optimistic.

You think about the human condition and you go back to the 1800s in London or Paris, on Wednesday, all the excrement from humans was thrown out the window into the street. There was a whole industry about collecting that and turning it into fertilizer and putting it on the fields to grow crops. People noticed that the number of people dying in the cities was increasing and they tied it to this problem. You can imagine the mayor of London saying, “Okay, we understand we have a problem here. We have decided that we are going to dig up the streets and put in a sewer system to collect this. Oh, and if you’re a landlord, you going to have to put in a special room in the apartments and you’ll have to put in plumbing for all this.” You can imaging the pushback that came at that time. But it didn’t stop it. The change came anyway. It’s the same with fuel… The change will come.

It’s the same with alternative energy. The human race didn’t leave the Stone Age because we ran out of stone. We found a better way and I think we know what that better way is now. It will come, regardless of who is in charge.

Do you think that if humanity has a change of heart and does everything it can for climate change right now, do you think we have a chance?

Oh yes. I think that the technology is there. If we wanted to, and this is where the old and the new are in conflict, we can increase the mileage of out vehicles to 50 miles to a gallon. This can happen overnight. The technology is there, we have electric cars. We just need to have a new source for the electricity to charge those cars. These changes can come very rapidly.

Still, in the meantime, does the current administration’s efforts and the general lack of political will to change frustrate you? I know that you’ve been outspoken about climate change for a long while and that you actually worked with former Vice President Al Gore on An Inconvenient Truth.

We also worked with Senator McCain with the insurance companies because the insurance companies know what’s going on. It frustrates me because the evidence is so overwhelming. The only way these people have made an inroad is that they are trying to move away from facts.

But facts do matter. They really do matter when it comes to anything that is proven by chemistry and physics. How far will they be able to go… If I was the current administration, I would be very afraid of a major climate impact occurring under my watch while I have taken a very strong stance against this thing and issue. It can come back and bite you. Anyone who’s been in politics realizes that a month is an eternity. I have to feel that the pendulum has gone very far to the right, but it will come back. How much damage can be done in the short-term? Well, it’s probably the only time in my life that I think bureaucracy will work to our benefit. [Laughs]

My greatest concern is for young people; people who are just starting their careers. I’ve had people ask me, “Is there going to be a future in my area of research?” My feeling has always been that you go with the facts and the facts always win. Yes, there will be a future. It may be a rough spell here, but I believe that every time there is something bad here, there is something good on the other side that counteracts it.

It is important that people speak out. Science is not going to change. You may be cover it up, hide it, try not to monitor it, but it is not going away. Change will come. It’s an interesting time that we are living in… For me, I’ve got my forty year pin here. I’ve been with Ohio State for forty years. I’ve been through times when the government’s been shut down for nine months. It’s stressful for anyone who is working in the area. But at the end of the day, the facts do matter. You just stick to the facts.

But what about the alternative facts?

[Chuckles] They will be short lived. I do think about this. The fact is the human race has gone through two dark ages where people revert to myths, to magic, but it never lasts. I’ve seen the Cultural Revolution. I’ve been to China after their Cultural Revolution. There was an uprising of all the peasants and all the professors were sent out to work in pepper fields in far western China, practically starved to death and the country went down.

In every country, gross domestic product is directly related to how much support that country gives to science and technology. This is where new ideas come from that keep a country strong. So, are we going to go through a cultural revolution is this country, are we going to try to go backwards? I think you can do it in a system like they had in China, but it is harder to do in a democracy.

Last week I was lecturing in Alberta, Canada, and there was a reporter who came to talk to me afterwards. He asked me, “Is the time when other nations need to step up and support climate science instead of the U.S.?” They may have to. They may have to. But I believe that the science will go on because it always has. There are good times and bad times, but in the end it is absolutely essential for the wellbeing of the country that we deal with facts.

I’m teaching a paleoclimate class and I asked the students where they thought the climate would be in 2040 and I was discouraged. Young people should be the ones who are optimistic about the future and that they can change the world. But no, they were really concerned about where we are headed. I think that is not good because, when you get to my age you can get pessimistic, because you’ve seen a lot. [Chuckles] But when you’re young, you need to think you can change the world. Because you can. You’ve got to believe it.

Published by John Hooton.