As we know the basis of using borehole temperature profiles to model the surface ground temperature history uses the inverse methods which are inherently ill posed. The method obtains solutions through subjective selection of parameters and assumptions. There are actually a couple of approaches to using borehole profiles for temperature reconstruction:

“2 Ways to Interpret Depth Profiles:

Forward Modeling: Straightforward “trial-and-error approach.” Compute the temperature-depth profile given an estimate of the past surface temperature history, and adjust the input temperature history according to the discrepancy between borehole observation and constructed profile. _

Inversion: Several mathematically sophisticated inverse methods exist. Requires subjective judgement in choice of method, parameterization of reconstruction (eg. judgements of data quality), assessment of uncertainty, resolution”

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/Pollack_and_Smerdon_Journal.pdf

What surprises me is that borehole measurements and temperature reconstructions are rather well accepted by many in and outside the climate science community as a valid measurement of , at least, low frequency changes in past temperatures.

The comment below from Wikipedia warns against using borehole measurements, with the poor temporal resolution existing in these methods, for comparison with the instrumental temperature record.

“At the start of the 20th Century, their resolution is a few decades; hence they do not provide a useful check on the instrumental temperature record.”[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

In addition we have the difference of surface air temperature versus ground measurement.

"However, they record surface temperature not the near-surface temperature (1.5 meter) used for most "surface" weather observations. These can differ substantially under extreme conditions or when there is surface snow. In practice the effect on borehole temperature is believed to be generally small."

We also have the warning in the excerpt from the paper linked below about placing confidence in a single borehole measurement.

"We examine the subhemispheric spatial correlation of GST and SAT trends at various
spatial scales. In the 5-degree grid employed for optimal detection, we find that the
majority of grid element means are determined from three or fewer boreholes, a
number that is insufficient to suppress site-specific noise via ensemble averaging...

...To appreciate the significance of this sparse occupancy, one must recognize the uncertainties that affect the interpretation of individual borehole temperature profiles. The inevitable presence of site-specific noise in subsurface temperatures (see Shen et al. [1995] and Pollack and Huang [2000] for a discussion of these effects), has led geothermal researchers to caution against placing confidence in a reconstruction derived from a single borehole; more typically they discuss regional ensembles of data [Shen et al., 1995; Pollack et al., 1996] and the regional climatic reconstructions derived from the data ensembles. This procedure has parallels in the assembly of a dendroclimatological chronology. A chronology derived from a single tree would surely be viewed with skepticism compared to a chronology assembled from scores of trees. [18] To enhance the regional climate signal while suppressing site-specific noise, geothermal researchers employ simultaneous inversion of several boreholes [Beltrami et al., 1997] or averaging of several individual reconstructions [Shen et al., 1995]. Simultaneous inversion seeks a signal compatible (within tolerance levels) with all of the individual borehole temperature profiles; the averaging technique operates under the assumption that site-specific noise is random and cancels under averaging, whereas a regional climate signal is common and additive.”

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/Pollack_and_Smerdon_Journal.pdf

In commenting on the various ice core records the Orsi paper states the following:

“In addition, other records have weak trends (South Pole [Mosley-Thompson et al., 1993]), or slightly increasing trends (Siple Dome [Mayewski et al., 2004]), raising the possibility of considerable spatial heterogeneity of the climate signal within Antarctica.”

What I find amusing is that if a layperson or non member of the climate science community were to make a very incautious statement such as Steig did here that person would be severely (and rightly so) criticized for their lack of a broader view of the issue at hand.

Jeff, I am curious whether the borehole was actually a bore hole or an ice core measurement. I have recorded and analyzed a number of ice core measurements and found these result greatly varying – as a proxy for temperature – over relatively short distances. The O18 and H2 isotope ratio proxy concepts for temperature are probably the best temperature proxies available in my opinion, but these proxies are better at measuring large changes in temperatures as occurred over a complete glacial period than in getting smaller changes like we see over the modern warming period correct.

If Steig is making his claim based on a single proxy measurement, I would think that would be evidence that he has been spoiled by the climate science community that seems to accept without criticism conclusions that are in agreement with the consensus.

I was finally able to “connect all the dots” and to find the words to concisely express my conclusion to Climategate:

From Hiroshima in Aug 1945 to Climategate in Nov 2009

Living inside the “sphere of influence” of the Sun’s pulsar core
Is like living in electron orbits around an atom’s nuclear core
We are humbly connected to RTG (Reality, Truth, God), or
We are arrogantly connected to false illusions of control !

THERE ARE NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, EXCEPTIONS

The conclusion is being written here; http://omanuel.wordpress.com/

It is consistent with the conclusion of many other scientists and religionists:

We can arrive at the same RTG (Reality, Truth, God) by many different paths:
Experimentation, observation, meditation, contemplation, silence, prayer, etc.

Thank you, Jeff, for all that you have done to make this possible.

With kind regards,
- Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com

This quote is in the conclusion of Orsi:

“This record also confirms the work of Steig et al.
[2009], showing that WAIS Divide has been warming by
0.23
0.08 C per decade over 1957–2007 C.E.”

Which is what earned him an honorable mention in the post. Just because nonsense math resulted in a similar slope to other nonsense math, doesn’t mean it confirms anything.

Eric just can’t stand being wrong. That gets in the way of good science, and he’s very capable of that, so this is a pity for all of us, not just those who rely on him to defend the status quo.

The problem for many is that the ‘proposed explanation’ is so always limited by the knowledge of the proposer; this little problem also tends to limit the ‘test’ for some reason. Remember, there is nothing new under the Sun, as always, there are very few great minds on this rock. One other observation if I may, have you noticed that there are fewer books by science fiction writers? Books are so yuck these days! Wanna’be-fiction-writers who couldn’t write a book if their life depended on it, or sell one if they could write, seem to become PhD’s these days. It may be the fact that they have an endless supply of captive, blank, young minds to blow each day. Maybe?

PS: Hypothesis – The more we blog of, and with, science fiction PhD’s the more they make. (Hummmm.. wonder if I could do that too?;-)

Some points on Orsi. His Figure 3 shows warming of about 1.5 deg since the 80s. I believe this is what Steig is happy about.

caveat: most of the numbers I use are eyeballed, albeit using a ruler for Orsi and figure 3.