FDR

Some years ago I spent a lot of time looking into boreholes and it all turned into a counsel of despair.

I did get some theoretical results, some of which I think I must have posted on your old site.

Basically the eigenvalues that are evident in individual boreholes (which you wrote about) can be seen as arising from inherent eigenfunctions of the diffusion process.

Also some work on temporal resolution (approximately {sqrt(e)*x,x/sqrt(e)} i.e if you are looking at a hump around 500 years ago it cannot be resolved beyond the range (300-825), it depends on the aperture and the number and distribution of data points but it is a guide figure. I also looked more generally at aperture effects (basically how the aperture [log of the ratio of max to min depth] is related to the eigenvalues. As I recall some of the borehole apertures were not sufficent to cover the span 1500-1950 without risking distorting the signal.

Perhaps the bigest bugbear is due to the discontinuities in the slope due to the background vertical heatflux as it passes between strata with marginally different conductivities.

The process used in the reconstructions is first to guess the background slope and then construct the anomalies and invert them. This process is completely unsound and small errors in guess give rise to large errors in output (also guessing wrong leads to the injection of a constant slope into the data, it just so happens that constant slopes are unphysical as they do not relate to any possible surface temperature history).

The alternative is to allow the background slope emerge as a result from the inversion process not as an input but this means handling the data at one difference order less(not looking at the area under the slope but at the curvature of the slope only) effectively using the first differentials of the functions and making the inversion more rational but much less precise.

Regarding the data itself some of the (I think included) wells are only logged to 1/10 the temperate resolution (.1C as opposed to .01C if my memroy serves).

As I recall the metadata lists neither the difusion coefficient, specific heat, nor mineral clasification only the condictivity (or its inverse I don’t recall which) so a blanket specific heat has to be assumed. Alos some of the conductivities look convincing (lots of digits and vary between holes logged by the same researcher) others don’t, in particularly batches with the same value for each hole.

I believe that there was a selection process that picked out the best holes by some criteria, unfortunately their seems to be nothing in the archived metadata to indicate how this could be achieved.

I think that there is more but I gave up on this years ago and my memory is not what it was.

I did write to the people that I thought should be interested but as it was basically a counsel of despair it was not well received, the best offer I got was come back when you have analysed all the boreholes, which was beyond my means (it would have taken decades without automation and a proper computer).

I did at one statge divise a scan to look for strata lyer discontinuities (looking for tell-tale “V” like turns in the temps) but there was no way of fixing what was an acceptable amount of discontinuity and (as I recall) stripping out the most obvious duff holes left one with holes that contained little in the way of signal.

Also if I recall the archived data does not necessarily include the complete log (topping and tailing has been performed to get rid of data corresponding to dates much before 1500 and the last decade prior to logging). This is a real pity as it makes the data conform to the prejudice of the model used (that such data would be unhelpful) and possibly disards that data on which the background sope estimation was predicated.

Anyway I hope that you do revisit it.

Alex

As a loooong time visitor to this site who appreciates the science presented and debated here, and the diligent work you have taken on in a wholly honest and gentlemanly manner, I offer a heartfelt thank you and hearty congratulations, for your being recognized as #32 of the “50 People Who Matter” for 2010, by New Statesman.

Personally, I believe you should have been listed as #1. But that just reflects my bias. Which is based on my own evaluation of the potential mess I believe you’ve spared us all from, had you never taken an interest in, nor gotten involved in “auditing” so much of climate science.

Many people, including me, thank God you did get involved. And with that you’ve secured a large place for yourself in history. A hero to some, including me, and a spoiler to those that could have made enormous fortunes trading ~carbon credits~, at the rest of our expense. LOL

All things considered, I’m sure it may take some time to unwind a bit, now that the battle appears to be on the downhill side of events. But I’ll caution you to stay sharp and at the ready, because as an American steeped in our politics I assure you congress will be calling on you sometime after the November elections.

With all that said and sincerely meant, I hope you’ll take some time to enjoy yourself for a while. And if you ever feel compelled to come to this part of the world, if you don’t mind sharing a smallish condo with an aging wannabe polymath, and an ornery fat chihuahua, mi casa es su casa. Just bring a small toy for the dog. That way she might leave you alone.

Waiting on standby here…

Highest possible Regards,

Tex

I’m sure that I’ve told the story of my contact with Stigler when I was about 14. He threw my golf ball into the woods after I’d hit a great shot to be on the 11th green at Muskoka Lakes with a great chance for an eagle. (I annoyed the geezers ahead of me by hitting before they were off the green.) It’s funny what sticks in your mind. I remember the shot clearly though it was almost 50 years ago. I think that I knew who Stigler was because I’d caddied for my father in a match against Stigler in a club tournament the year before. I don’t remember who Stigler was playing with. I played Stigler in the club semis later that year and whipped him. I was a teenager and didn’t have the faintest interest in what he did. I knew that he was an American, I might have known that he was from Chicago.

I played a lot of golf in my early teens, but haven’t kept it up. The other hole that I remember really vividly was my first birdie when I was about 8 or 9. The 12th hole at Muskoka was really beautiful, elevated tees looking over the lake with big Canadian Shield rocks. I was still too small to hit the green from the tee, but I bounced a ball off one of the rocks about 20 feet from the pin and got my first birdie.

Howver, there does not appear to be a directory called “proxy-data”. You might try http://climateaudit.info/data/ and see what you can find there.