cohenite,

Regarding Arctic sea ice in the thirties:

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/11/pesky-reality-intrudes-in-denierville-again-danish-ice-maps-from-the-30s/comment-page-1/

"...the 1930's 'similar melt' is the second last dip on the graph, the first decline with modern observational data. This saw a return to 'normal' after a peak that had seen the greatest extents in 500 years."

Interesting to compare the "second last" dip on the graph to the "last" dip on the graph.

Poirot, the Kinnard paper which you link to [have you read it?] uses the same proxies as the earlier Kaufman paper:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kaufman2009/

Those proxies were incorrectly used in Kaufman who also found "unprecedented" warming in the Arctic in the modern era. This common error is discussed by Steve McIntyre:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/03/kaufmann-and-upside-down-mann/

Put simply Kaufman and Kinnard misinterpret proxies for past temperature and ice extent conclusions based on temperature because they turn them upside down.

Poirot I linked to another paper above which shows the 'grow-back' of ice being the largest in the satellite era; how does that fit with Kinnard's thesis of unparalled melting?

For a better historical look at the Arctic ice levels Tony Brown has prepared an exhaustive list of papers, data and observations at Judith Curry:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

cohenite,

Regarding "grow-back".

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/snow-ice/sea-ice.html

"Evidence of the age of Arctic sea ice suggests an overall loss of multi-year ice. The proportion of sea ice five years or older has declined dramatically over the recorded time period from more than 30 percent in the 1980's to 4 percent in 2012. A growing percentage of sea ice is only one or two years old. This thinning of Arctic ice makes it more vulnerable to further melting.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77270

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00113.1

Did you have a peep at that piece from the White House blog on future mechanisms that may useful to exploit the melting Arctic?

http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/10/national-strategy-arctic-region-announced

Poirot,

You persist in banging on with your so called scientific links; the problem is that your science is no longer good enough for your own scientists.

When are you going to answer the questions? “Why do you think the global CAGW response infrastructure has collapsed and what do you think should be done about it”?

It’s not our science that has failed, it’s yours. It’s not our intellect that has failed it’s yours, it’s not our ideology that has failed, it’s yours. So what are you going to do about it?

Why should we be in anyway interested in your failed science? If you can’t answer the questions, shut up!

There are a number of sites which provide data on ice levels at the Arctic; Nansen is as good as any:

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

You will note winter levels have not changed much since the satellites came on board but summer melts have been consistently below the satellite average.

Winter levels are an indication of new ice whereas summer levels show the decline in old ice.

During the satellite period there has been a decline in old ice; but this 'old' ice was only established in 1978-1979, the highest level of Arctic ice during the 20thC:

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ScreenHunter_102-Mar.-03-07.04.jpg

The graph shows the huge growth in ice from 1974 to 1979. Given this the concern about levels of ice in the satellite era seems a concoction.

I read the White House proposal; oil and Narwhal steaks are on the menu I guess.

spindoc,

What gives you the right to dictate whether or not someone on this forum comments?

Mind yer own beeswax...

(and I mean that in the nicest possible way)

cohenite,

If nothing much is changing in the Arctic, why the rush to organise pie slices by the White House?