How did you come to that conclusion? The graph show September extent bobbing up and down in a narrow band from 1900 to 1970, whereupon it starts dropping like a stone and never recovers. No “steady decline” there. The only part of the graph that goes back to 1860 is the “Nordic sea” estimate. But the Nordic sea is only a small part of the Arctic. Did you perhaps confuse that with a measurement of the entire Arctic?

Your hodgepodges of letters and quotes are always interesting, and must take quite a lot of work to put together. But I’m not sure what you think they prove. It seems like you need a clear statement of how much ice you think there was in recent centuries, and what evidence you have for that. A map would be useful. More serious consideration of how paleoclimatologists estimate past levels of sea ice would strengthen your argument (if I understand you) that your methods are better. Simply saying the IPCC uses “linear models” is not very descriptive, and as far as it pertains to the peer-reviewed literature, not accurate.

I skimmed over your paper about historic variation in Arctic sea ice….haven’t had a chance to read it all yet. What I saw was very good and needs to be brought to the attention of the mainstream….

Anyway, I came across it while doing research for a book I am writing. A 200 year history of storms in New York’s Great Lakes region.

I have been doing a good bit of research on the summer of 1816..which I noticed you mentioned. As you are aware, the prevailing thought is that volcanic activity..especially Tambura, is responsible for the unusual weather in 1816.

I was entertaining the possibility that the loss of ice off of Greenland in 1815 and 1816 may have played a role. Which brought me to your paper.

I am interested in hearing any views you may have on this subject.

kellen_bassette@yahoo.com

Hello, there, UEA!

I think the wiki pges change sometimes-this is the current version that led from the ‘open ice’ reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Polar_Sea

Tonyb

“Whalers in the North Atlantic in 1815 and 1816 described an unprecedented breaking up of the ice in the Davis Strait, that had apparently sent icebergs as far south as 40°N. The prevailing theory held that seawater could not turn to ice (supported by observations that melted icebergs released fresh water), and therefore that all Arctic ice formed around coastlines. It further held that the waters around the North Pole might therefore be ice-free, forming an Open Polar Sea

If the barriers of ice surrounding this open sea were breaking up, then there might be an opportunity to sail across the top of the North American continent, either by by the proposed Northwest Passage, or perhaps by sailing north past Spitzbergen, across the Polar Sea, and down through the Bering Strait.””

I can’t find the source. Which Wikipedia site is it taken from?

Thanks Tom

Great info Jarmo, which I will use on my next article in this series.

Tommoriarty: I will post this on WUWT as well, but that info you link to will also come in very useful as I go back in time to the ‘virtually ice free’ arctic of 5000 years or so ago.

Tonyb

http://www.baltic.vtt.fi/pdfs/meri32.pdf

The graph of ice extent off Newfoundland was quite interesting as was the graph of Hudson’s Bay ice. Hard to dismiss the cyclic nature of the ice pack with those records.

Thanks for enlightening me TonyB.

(repeat of previous comment, but with correct link.)

This is great stuff! Ths history must be understood to put present and future times into perspective.

Understanding early and middle Holocene pre-historic times is very enlightening also. A lot of paleontological work has been done by a lot of dedicated and talented people to figure out what happened in the arctic. It was understood decades ago that the mid-Holocene was warmer in the Arctic than it is today. But the research that shows this has been drowned out by rabid global warming crowd and the totally credulous popular media.

Here is <a href="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/dont-panic-the-arctic-has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past/an abundance of evidence”> that the Arctic was warmer in the mid-Holocene than it is today.

Best Regards,
ClimateSanity

This is great stuff! Ths history must be understood to put present and future times into perspective.

Understanding early and middle Holocene pre-historic times is very enlightening also. A lot of paleontological work has been done by a lot of dedicated and talented people to figure out what happened in the arctic. It was understood decades ago that the mid-Holocene was warmer in the Arctic than it is today. But the research that shows this has been drowned out by rabid global warming crowd and the totally credulous popular media.

Here is <a href="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/dont-panic-the-arctic-has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past/an abundance of evidence that the Arctic was warmer in the mid-Holocene than it is today.

Best Regards,
ClimateSanity

Tony aptly and appropriately mentioned Nansen. I, just last night, had posted a two part documentary covering his Arctic Expedition.

http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=566

It is about an hour long but broken into two parts for easy split session viewing. His achievements with the expedition were numerous despite the failure to reach the pole.