What a novel idea!
This should have been done long ago.
(I suspect it has been done but the results didn't fit the model prediction)

WOW. I thought the current models flawlessly predicted the coming disaster of climate change.

"The more data we have from the past, the more accurate our picture of the past, the better the calibration on those models,"

whodathunkit

Agriculture has been recording soil temperatures for many years also. I would love to see someone collate this data into a report too. It may tell us a story that is quite surprising. Considering the temperature of the top 6"-12" of soil is the most important temperature to mankind's survival, I am bewildered as to why it hasn't been reported yet (or perhaps it has but is growing moldy in some dusty storage box). GK

I think they would be better off using cores and other scientific methods then using "tall tales from an old sea dog arrrgghhh!"

For those who like modeled predictions/projections. Here is a different one. GK

'Linear plus period model from Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2003) overlaid on satellite data after intercept shift. Dotted line is model extrapolation post-2000 calibration period end. a) UAH. b) RSS.'

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loehle_fig6_uah.png

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

is a good review of historical reports on Arctic conditions, complete with lots of maps.

Interesting reading.

Alternate URL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/

I suspect that there will be considerable cherry picking as to provide a model output with a warm bias.
Anybody dare to wager against this scenario?

Many of the AGW Pro Agenda folks will poop their pants when they see how many times Mariners had sailed from the Atlantic, through Hudson Bay, all the way through the Northwest Passage to the Pacific. Something that has not been available since the turn of the 20th Century. Before this AGW stuff all began.

Gordon Ford | October 20, 2009 11:00 AM --- This is new and only possible by the recent digitizing of the old sea logs so that the information is readily accessable.

?? Isn't there an accuracy and reliability issue with such data? After all, I doubt that the thermometers were all calibrated accurately, that the water samples were taken with exactly the same method and that everyone taking readings would agree on a particular measurement that the readings would be meaningful. Then we have the issues of ships that were sunk because experienced severe hurricane activity that never made landfall. There would be no records of such encounters because the people doing the recording didn't live to make the entries.

This may be interesting but not as useful scientifically as people want to believe. Of course, we could see the data used to spin the usual false narratives that we have been reading for the past twenty years.

When do we get to see the new charts?

Reply: It says next year.

I'm sure that this will uncover some useful stories but I doubt if it will be any help in our current debate on AGW, sea levels, CO2 etc.

A good example is the politicised underwater headline-catching stunts in the Maldives where the local President/government insists on undertaking crazy events to try to obtain 'compensation' for perceived rising sea levels in the island nation. This is despite knowing full well there is no looming disaster as told in this open Letter to President Mohamed Nasheed from Nils-Axel M�rner:

� � I announced this [sea levels currently falling] happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.
When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply�. �

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5416-lost-at-sea-maldives-president-all-wet-on-sea-level

It seems that like many politicians, Mr President and his predecessor were not interested to hear that sea levels werent rising despite the excellent news this brings to the people of his small island nation.

This is an excellent example of how politicans cannot be trusted with science and history. They will use the 'story' they want to hear and massage it to advance thier own agenda.

Whilst it may seem a good idea to look at sea logs to fill gaps in our knowledge of historic sea temperatures, this could be adding just another set of variables to the already complicated science of climate study.
Sea temperatures in the 1800's were invariably taken with water pulled up in wooden, metal buckets, there would have been no controls over how these temperatures were taken. I do not think we can take anything more than anecdotal evidence from this and not include these findings in any study that strives to make predictions of future climate.

Brett-

Of course the sealogs will be found to be inaccurate. Due to drunkenness, poor technology, bad record keeping, Al Gore, Hansen, NASA, NOAA, et al. I can't wait to hear all the crazy POV's on this one. I think something about 'redistributing the wealth' also; but wasn't that what explorers were doing way back when?

idecline..on the grounds of not looking foolish...LOL

RE: Rick form the Sierra | October 20, 2009 6:39 PM

Many of the AGW Pro Agenda folks will poop their pants when they see how many times Mariners had sailed from the Atlantic, through Hudson Bay, all the way through the Northwest Passage to the Pacific.

Okay, I'll bite. How many times? Better yet, how many times has it been done in less than two months, with no ice ever in sight? Give me some examples.

All relevant histrocial evidence that I'm aware of points to the fact that no one previous to the past several years has been able to traverse the Northwest Passage without encountering all sorts of ice. Amundsen's passage in the early 20th century took more than two years to complete. Others sailed from point to point within the Canadian Arctic, but were never able to traverse the whole passage because of thick ice.

BTW, Hudson Bay is not considered part of the Northwest Passage. In fact, it's out of the way for anyone headed from the North Atlantic through the NW Passage to the Pacific.

What amazes me about this site is that 90% postings seem to be totally anti-AGW yet it is the global warming center LOL

I agree with a number of skeptics and supporters that this may not be the best source of data.

Especially since 17 esteemed scientific organizations just told Congress that the time for skepticism has long passed.

Let's see who to believe, old sea logs and deniers or:
Here are all the organizations that signed on:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

But, but but it is all a conspiracy. Have you ever tried to keep a scientist from expressing his opinion? Can't do it, let alone tens of thousands of them.

"The more data we have from the past, the more accurate our picture of the past, the better the calibration on those models"

Bret, Your comment proves the point that I was trying to make. The science is NOT settled. There is no possible way to creat a climat model on a Cray computer or any other computer. Too many variables. Computer models could predict the outcome of an Atari Pong game.

GettingWarm:
"Especially since 17 esteemed scientific organizations just told Congress that the time for scepticism has long passed. "

If true, this statement marks the end of science as we know it.

The very basis of good science is scepticism.

Without it, we are left with religion and political tyranny

A sad day indeed.

GettingWarm was right about one thing.
(only one)
"Have you ever tried to keep a scientist from expressing his opinion? Can't do it, let alone tens of thousands of them. "

And we of course have a verifiable list of at least 35 thousand that have indeed expressed their opinion that AGW theory is WRONG.

Good Point GettingWarm

"Anonymous:

?? Isn't there an accuracy and reliability issue with such data? After all, I doubt that the thermometers were all calibrated accurately, that the water samples were taken with exactly the same method and that everyone taking readings would agree on a particular measurement that the readings would be meaningful. Then we have the issues of ships that were sunk because experienced severe hurricane activity that never made landfall. There would be no records of such encounters because the people doing the recording didn't live to make the entries.

This may be interesting but not as useful scientifically as people want to believe. Of course, we could see the data used to spin the usual false narratives that we have been reading for the past twenty years."

I could not agree with you more. This is not a reliable dataset at all. Lets keep in mind that the "spin" would no doubt go in both directions.