Unfortunately, historical maps are–very–poor prior to the Age of Exploration. The Mercator projection (which distorts size, but is ideal for navigation) did not exist until around 1530. (One of the several very compelling arguments against the Vinland map being genuine is that it is laid out much in the manner of Mercator, and the boreholes match a volume dated 1480).

So it becomes very difficult to determine sea levels, seeing as how the Medieval “T maps” are done on a religious rather than a geographical basis.

I have seen a good many of the ancient maps (I have photostat copies squirreled away), and the coastlines, while somewhat distorted, seem substantially the same as today’s: No “exta land” showing or notable “known features” missing.
But that doesn’t mean an awful lot.

Perhaps a professional paleocartographer should take a look at some of the period maps and try to relate them to what we now know about glacier extent and sea levels. See how it all compares with the archaeological and geological end of it.

Some in the pro-AGW camp seem to think that every glacier is in perfect equilibrium and that minor changes in temperature can be used to explain everything they observe. That is sloppy thinking. So, finding recent organics under an receding glacier is no surprise, but it is also not a guaranteed measure of temperature unless you know the rest of the information a glacier has recorded over the centuries.

REPLY: No causation, simply reporting of findings from field work and the implications for the apparent temperatures durign the period.

Are you allowed to post the Greenland Climate Change presentation for downloading? I would like to have it.

Thanks,

Reply: I’m waiting for that