Saturday, February 18, 2012

Steve Goddard steals Pat Michaels' trick of deleting inconvenient data

Pat Michaels got in trouble for repeatedly deleting data that is inconvenient to his denialist viewpoint.

Now Steve Goddard is trying his hand at the same "hide the incline" trick.  He puts up a post with this graph to claim sea levels aren't rising:

and adds a link to the dataset that inconveniently omits the much more extensive datasource that comes with its own graphs.  Shall we help out Mr. Goddard?  Yes!  Just click the link, click "Time serie" and away we go!

First graph:

What do you know - same data (Envisat, no inverted barometer, no seasonality removed, no isostatic adjustment), but it comes complete with nifty smoothing and an inclined trendline.  Instead of just pasting in the url for this graph, Goddard downloaded the data and recreated a graph without inconveniently trending trendlines.

Still, it's not going up quickly, so that's something.  Or is it?

Same data, except with inverted barometer:

I've poked around about whether applying the inverted barometer adjustment is a good idea.  My best guess is it's unnecessary in the long term, but this short data set makes it helpful (see Realclimate).  Goddard denies it, but in general I find him unpersuasive.

How about other data?

Maybe Jason:

Maybe Multi-mission:

Plenty more variations out there for you to try yourself, but the pattern sticks.  Goddard cherrypicked a short dataset that most favored his position and then recreated the graph to hide the incline.  It then got picked up by Watts (who tempered it slightly) and spewed everywhere (I found it first at TigerHawk and traced it back).

The one useful conclusion to this is if you do feel it necessary read Goddard, do so by reading ReallySciency who's watchdogging him, including on this issue.


Anonymous said...

Has human culture ever before produced the likes of Steven Goddard? Could it, before the Enlightenment providing such a rich feeding ground for the hungry obtuse? Here is a person exemplifying a population that cannot directly metabolize scientific enlightenment in pursuit of synthesizing even great achievements but must instead break ideas and concepts down into disharmonious fragments, shatter music into noise, fragrance into stink, intricate structure into liquifying putrefaction.

As a member of the biota of decomposition, where does Goddard in particular best fit? Aerobic or anaerobic bacteria? Maggot?

Anonymous said...

The problem with the Envisat altimeter is that it has an unusually large drift, which should be removed by in-flight calibration. T/P and the Jasons don't have this problem, as also verified by in-flight calibration.

In-flight cal is done by flying over known GPS-positioned tide gauges, and comparing altimetry/tide gauge data trends.

There is at least one good paper on this, but I'm on the move using a tablet PC and have difficulty finding it.

Brian yes, IB correction zeroes out long term, but applying it reduces the noise level somewhat. The seasonal reduction is a must.

Martin Vermeer

John said...

The biota of decomposition have been, yet again, sorely misunderstood and gravely under appreciated !!

Those creatures fulfill their purpose constantly, tirelessly and accurately.

This biota of decomposition is not to be impugned simply because an individual of the self-proclaimed "highest life form" fails obviously, miserably (and, perhaps, aggressively) at his own presumed purpose.

John Puma

Martin Vermeer said...

It so happens that Envisat has a very large altimeter drift, as can be determined by in-flight calibration. The Jasons and T/P are nearly free of drift.

In-flight calibration is done by flying over the sea areas close to known tide gauges with permanent GPS time series, and comparing the altimetry and (GIA-reduced) tide gauge trends. A global set of tide gauges is used.

See, e.g., this presentation. (There is a better paper but I cannot find it now.)

Brian, the IB correction averages to zero long-term but will reduce variability a bit. The seasonal correction is a must. And of course GIA is a good idea though it's only 0.3 mm/yr.

Martin Vermeer said...

Newer doc:

still not what I was looking for

J Bowers said...

"Has human culture ever before produced the likes of Steven Goddard?"

The anti-relativity movement?

J Bowers said...

And funnily enough...

Wiki - Anti-relativity


Some Objectivists question or deny relativity as it doesn't fit neatly into Ayn Rand's metaphysical notions about causation (and is probably corrupted by dirty Kantian philosophy to boot).[2] The most notable Objectivist anti-relativist was Petr Beckmann, who attempted to replace it with a theory called "Galilean Electrodynamics.""

Jeffrey Davis said...

I agree about the biota of decomposition. It wasn't for nothing that the Egyptians honored the scarab.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I apologize to the worthy undertakers. Bacteria and maggots are admittedly vastly more useful and virtuous than Steven Goddard, more intelligent in their actions mindless though they are, more worthy of our praise.

Ron Broberg said...

Regarding the title of the thread, this is nothing new for Goddard.

Cherry Snow (Tamino)
Goddards Snowjob (Broberg)

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

What are you talking about? There are no differences in those graphs. This is the 2nd time in 2 weeks Eli has posted identical graphs and claimed a made up conspiracy.

Brian said...

Jay, I know you won't pay attention to anything I say, but I'd encourage you to read Celery Eater. While he's almost always wrong, he at least attempts to make an argument, react to evidence presented to him (sometimes - he likes to redirect as well), and provide contrary evidence. You're not meeting CE's standard.

Lazarus said...

I hope you don't mind a repost of this on Really Sciency;