Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Steve Goddard’s computer animation


Add this to the Heights of Hoaxiness files:  Steve Goddard (go here if you need to catch up) has made an astounding discovery, which he reveals with a .gif and YouTube animation of the Earth at Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT).

Goddard discovered that, if one ignores warming of small amounts, and counts it as not warming at all, the colors on a color-coded map change a lot, and look a lot cooler.

Shorter Goddard:  Hide the increase in temperatures, and it looks like temperatures don’t increase nearly as much.

Steve Goddard's map of a warming Pacific Ocean, hiding the small increases

Steve Goddard's map of a warming Pacific Ocean, hiding the small increases in temperature. (This should be a .gif that changes as you watch; if you see no animation, click on the image)

Goddard's cooler Pacific 3

Steve Goddard's map of a warming Pacific Ocean, hiding the small increases in temperature. (Another version, trying to get the .gif to display.) This should be a .gif that changes as you watch; if you see no animation, click on the image

You couldn’t make up such denialism if you tried.  If you submitted this stuff as fiction, it couldn’t get published.

Here’s an object warning about turning angry monkeys loose with graphics software:  Goddard’s YouTube:

Key unanswered question:  If we ignore rising temperatures, do they stop rising?  If we ignore rising temperatures, can glaciers, oceans, plants and animals be convinced to do the same?

How many polar bears read Steve Goddard’s posts at WUWT?  Can they be persuaded?

Somebody exhume Benjamin Disraeli.  He needs to update his stuff.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

About these ads

21 Responses to Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Steve Goddard’s computer animation

  1. […] one of these three can be called average, and yet none might describe the typical entry. HT to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for attributing the LDL&S quote to Mr. Disraeli. MFB was talking about global warming denial, a […]

    Like

  2. […] one of these three can be called average, and yet none might describe the typical entry. HT to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for attributing the LDL&S quote to Mr. Disraeli. MFB was talking about global warming denial, a […]

    Like

  3. […] “Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Steve Goddard’s computer animation” (Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub) […]

    Like

  4. [...] “Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Steve Goddard’s computer animation” (Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub) [...]

    Like

  5. [...] one of these three can be called average, and yet none might describe the typical entry. HT to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for attributing the LDL&S quote to Mr. Disraeli. MFB was talking about global warming denial, a [...]

    Like

  6. [...] one of these three can be called average, and yet none might describe the typical entry. HT to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for attributing the LDL&S quote to Mr. Disraeli. MFB was talking about global warming denial, a [...]

    Like

  7. Dale Husband says:

    “Ed, as usual, your hatred of me causes you to miss the factual point by seeing only what you wish to see. Then you do the typical labeling and denigration of people making the point you ignore.”

    Mr. Watts, were you looking in a mirror when you made that idiotic statement? Because that is one of the most blatant examples of projection I’ve ever seen. You and Goddard are frauds and all Ed did was point that out. Nice of you to say absolutely nothing factual and thus prove HIM right!

    Frauds should be subject to hatred when they are exposed. After all the attempts you and other denialists have made to project hatred on climate scientists, you have some nerve to complain when you get slammed back!

    Like

  8. Chris S. says:

    “Really a sad bunch here. Ed will be cured when he stops calling people deniers.”

    …cough…cough…COCKROACHES…cough

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, good grief.

    Anthony said:

    And contrary to Ed’s claims, nobody’s “hiding” anything with the excercise. This is simply a demonstration of showing color bias in the presentation. It probably wasn’t intentional on the part of the designer, but it is there nonetheless since there is no “null” or near normal color as in the GISS map:

    Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    Among other differences, the first url takes us to a map of the oceans in 2008; the second, unless we know the data to input, to a map of 2010. Sure they look different. Temperatures were higher in 2010.

    The 2008 map omits, blots out land temperature readings. The land is a lot warmer than normal, and so when you block out a significant portion of the Earth’s surface, and replace the warmer temperature colors with a color that indicates no warming, sure it looks cooler.

    Of course, that’s not as accurate, globally.

    The question, I suppose, should be what you want to show.

    (Hey, can somebody get Edward Tufte to drop by and lend advice?)

    The facts remain: Jockeying with colors to make things “look cooler” is a urine-impoverished way to prevent global warming. It may make Sen. Inhofe more complacent. It may give Christopher Monckton the giggles as he contemplates new ways to distort data and make up false history stories.

    But that’s all it does.

    You could obviate the problem by merely using shades of gray. If you make the warmest temperatures darker gray, or black, Anthony would complain that they make the map look too dark, and skew the viewer toward a conclusion that there is too much warming. If you make the coolest temperatures black, Anthony will complain you skew the map by showing too little cooling.

    Anthony is, I think, relying on media studies that show that after a half-century of using certain colors to represent certain temperatures, people are influenced to read a map showing blue as cooler than yellow. Anthony appears not to consider the possibility that people might understand “white” is hotter than “red” in heating metals and stars, but no matter. The entire issue is one of media perception.

    I am reminded that in the early part of the 20th century, baby goods for boys were indicated by the color pink, and baby goods for girls were indicated by the color blue. Today, just try to get the average high school boy to wear pink. Perceptions change.

    I am reminded of the great advertising campaign to change perceptions of cigarettes. Chesterfield and Marlboro, previously marketed as cigarettes for women, tried to broaden their appeal to include men, too — Marlboro finally struck on the use of a cowboy and the famous Marlboro Man series of ads. Today few would think “Marlboro Woman” the “right” view.

    Perhaps we should require that all cooler temperatures be indicated by red, so they’ll stand out. I vote for “Pig Lipstick Red” and tones of that color for cooling. That would be an appropriate way to dress up the charts.

    Anthony has made great hay over an accurate chart that shows a hockey-stick-shaped rise in temperatures, projected if we don’t control and reduce greenhouse gases. The mantra of those who unfairly criticize the scientists who made that chart has been “hide the decline.”

    Here we have a clear example of Anthony trying to “hide the incline.” Why shouldn’t Watts sit in the pillories he’s set up for people who monkey with data to show what the data do not say?

    Steve Goddard, whoever that is, looks at a map of the warming oceans and says, “Let’s change the colors to make the oceans appear cooler.”

    A rational person would look at the map and say, “We have to do something to stop global warming.” Of course, that is exactly what Anthony Watts wants to avoid: A rational decision to take action to control air pollution.

    The difference is undenaible (at least by rational people). The GISS SST map has a null or near normal color in white, the NOAA NESDIS SST map does not.

    The simple truth is that the NOAA/NSDIS SST map would in fact look different if there was a null or near normal neutral color, just like GISS does with their map(as I cited).

    Your problem is that you give GISS a free pass for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, making a null color at the near normal range from -.2 to +.2 But nobody here accuses them of “hiding data”.

    But, you and Ed ignore that because it is inconvenient to your points.

    It’s another teapot tempest, Anthony. What’s wrong with showing the ocean warming, where it warms? You think that’s too inflammatory?

    Use the other map, then. But don’t claim that hiding data is a better solution, just because you don’t like the colors.

    Ed can’t admit his error, his personal issues with me get in the way of rational thinking.

    Anthony wants to pick a fight for reasons I can’t imagine. It’s not even his post. I’ve made no error, simply called the bluff of Steven Goddard. Hiding warming in ocean temperatures by blurring temperature resolution of a map, and making warming temperatures the same color as cooling temperatures, is a good way to tell a lie.

    But it doesn’t do anything beneficial to knowledge.

    I doubt you will admit your error either.

    I was wrong in thinking Anthony might be fair minded about this. I incorrectly thought Anthony still had a sense of humor. I was wrong when I hoped Anthony might end his unholy fight against scientists.

    I have no problem admitting error, where I err.

    Ed also somehow didn’t link to the animated GIF blink comparator correctly, showing only the unmodified half, which adds to everyone’s confusion.

    Technical glitch. Wish I knew how to fix it. Got a solution, Anthony? Why don’t you e-mail me your version of the .gif — maybe that would work better. I get the image to work in some browser configurations, but not in others, and the glitch is not consistent. What’s going on? I don’t know.

    But that doesn’t change warming at all. As we sit here and dither about your wishes for a different color palette, the oceans warm, the glaciers melt, the CO2 levels rise, other greenhouse gases rise, and we slip further down the slope into the abyss of “too late to fix it!”

    Really a sad bunch here. Ed will be cured when he stops calling people deniers.

    What should I call someone who falsely accuses scientists of crimes, Anthony? Tell me what word you prefer, that is accurate.

    “Skeptic” doesn’t work because it’s not accurate, and it masks your advocacy against scientists and science.

    But in your world, you think that if we call a calf’s tail a leg, a calf would have five legs. In the real world, that’s not so. And calling a chicken’s tail a leg cannot feed any starving child anywhere on Earth.

    False labeling doesn’t help us solve the world’s problems. Labeling the data doesn’t change the data.

    Like

  10. bluegrue says:

    You are right, Anthony, my mistake. I’m sorry and offer my sincere apologies.

    Like

  11. MapleLeaf says:

    Tut tut, still investigating IP addresses of people who do not agree with you hey Anthony?

    Anyhow, did you look at the NOAA map that I suggested? Good grief, there is an awful amount of warm water out there– looks even worse on the NCDC map.

    There is no bias pr deception in the NESDIS maps Anthony, it just so happens that the 0 to +0.5 C area is much larger than the 0 to -0.5 C area, as one would expect with the oceans slowly warming with time. That is not misleading but just showing how it is.

    Now there would be a visual bias had the 0 to -0.5 C area been left white or blank, but a warm colour was given to the 0 to +0.5 C anomalies. Similarly, a visual bias would have been introduced had they left the positive anomalies blank and used cyan for the negative anomalies. But they did not do that– negative anomalies are allocated a cool colour and positive anomalies a warm colour. Simple. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend, or are you being obtuse on purpose? I honestly cannot believe that we are having this stupid argument, you guys really are scraping the very bottom of the barrel.

    The reality Anthony, is that the only real bias lies in the minds and imaginations of you and your cohort Steve Goddard (I do hope that is his real name, I do want to get it right).

    Now you keep do whatever it takes to brainwash your acolytes into thinking that scientists are incompetent and deceitful. It is hilarious that you are in fact the one being incompetent and deceitful in trying to achieve just that. LOL.

    PS: A task for you, calculate the energy required to warm the top 10 m of the ocean (under the area with 0 to +0.5 C anomalies shown in the NCDC map) by a ‘meagre’ +0.25 C.

    Like

  12. Anthony Watts says:

    Here’s another SST anomaly map, this time from NOAA NCDC, where they make the “null” or near normal color grey:

    Hey and guess what? They use -0.5 to 0.5 as the grey null change color.

    Will Ed claim they are hiding something like he did with me?

    Ed says: “Hiding information is hiding information, whether you do it honestly and innocently, or whether your intention is to spin the news.”

    Ed apparently only reserves such criticism for people he dislikes, me. When NASA or NOAA does it, they get a free pass from Ed.

    Still not to late to admit your error Ed. I doubt you will, as I predicted the first time.

    Like

  13. Anthony Watts says:

    “bluegrue” can’t seem to read correctly:

    Anthony, you claim (emphasis added)
    The central point then is, on the SST map, why is 0.00 to 0.5 temperature anomaly and -0.5 to 0 i.e “near normal range” indicated as yellow for slightly above normal and blue for slightly below normal?

    Inspection of the very map you link to shows, that while the range 0.0°C to +0.5°C is indeed yellow, the interval -0.5°C to 0.0°C is not, it is cyan. There are no negative anomalies depicted in yellow, as you claim. BTW, not even Goddard made this claim in his post (haven’t checked the comments).

    =========================================

    Sorry you are wrong. I never claimed any negative anomalies in yellow, only in blue (or cyan if you choose). Perhaps you simply can’t read English well, being based in Germany?

    Read it again, I wrote: “indicated as yellow for slightly above normal and blue for slightly below normal”, while referencing in sequence further up in the sentence the corresponding temperature range for above and below the zero line.

    And contrary to Ed’s claims, nobody’s “hiding” anything with the excercise. This is simply a demonstration of showing color bias in the presentation. It probably wasn’t intentional on the part of the designer, but it is there nonetheless since there is no “null” or near normal color as in the GISS map:

    Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    The difference is undenaible (at least by rational people). The GISS SST map has a null or near normal color in white, the NOAA NESDIS SST map does not.

    The simple truth is that the NOAA/NSDIS SST map would in fact look different if there was a null or near normal neutral color, just like GISS does with their map(as I cited).

    Your problem is that you give GISS a free pass for doing exactly the same thing we are doing, making a null color at the near normal range from -.2 to +.2 But nobody here accuses them of “hiding data”.

    But, you and Ed ignore that because it is inconvenient to your points.

    Ed can’t admit his error, his personal issues with me get in the way of rational thinking. I doubt you will admit your error either. Ed also somehow didn’t link to the animated GIF blink comparator correctly, showing only the unmodified half, which adds to everyone’s confusion.

    Really a sad bunch here. Ed will be cured when he stops calling people deniers.

    Like

  14. MapleLeaf says:

    Ed,

    Thanks for calling them on this. What you said in your post warrants repeating:

    “You couldn’t make up such denialism if you tried. If you submitted this stuff as fiction, it couldn’t get published.”

    Too true.

    And a memo to Watts the term is near-normal wrt the baseline average.

    Like

  15. MapleLeaf says:

    Oh for goodness sakes, Watts and Steve Goddard (that is his real name right Anthony, wouldn’t want anyone using ‘nasty’ monikers eh) are in serious denial!

    Anthony READ bluegrue’s post. And if you still insist that people are trying to hide the “cooler” SSTs, then look at this;

    The oceans are warming, deal with it instead of fudging data and maps. And you honestly wonder why you and Goddard have ZERO credibility?!

    PS: Exactly how old is that photo of you that you force us all to look at?

    Like

  16. [...] one of these three can be called average, and yet none might describe the typical entry. HT to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for attributing the LDL&S quote to Mr. Disraeli. MFB was talking about global warming denial, a [...]

    Like

  17. opit says:

    It’s really strange to see a chap with a hate on for religious interference with science pull the same sort of Strawman Argumentation by framing ‘Deniers’ in a forthright exercise of Logical Fallacy : Poisoning the Well Argumentation and Moving the Overton Window.
    Now I know very well that there is a network of lobbyists out there working to ‘debunk’ Anthropogenic Global Warming : there’s a list. Unhappily, lumping all and sundry in with that group ignores the beam in your own eye : most conspicuously the scam which blew up at Copenhagen when it was exposed that Carbon Tax ( which I call a scheme for a worldwide tax on the use of fire ) proposals were going to be switched so that polluting nations – the rich ones – got a cut in rates as compared to the impovershed Third World.
    They ran like hell.
    Global cooling is upon us… if the Sun doesn’t shine!

    http://my.opera.com/nepmak2000/blog/global-cooling-is-upon-us-if-the-sun-doesnt-shine

    There’s a neighbour of mine who only opened his yawp after I had already done so Dec 4. 2009 when I found a crazy allegation that made me start digging.
    Look in my Topical Index in the sidebar of opitslinkfest.blogspot.com for Climate in Contention sometime. I have never seen such a politicization of science as has happened since th start of the Bu$h Administration, when Parks staff had their briefings changed and things as stupid as paid access to weather advisories were booted around. When the head of the Smithsonian quit a few years back over the government perversion of climate reports out of Europe it didn’t just indicate ‘deniers’ at work : it was a whole catfight between research selectively funded and the energy industry that polluted dialogue and defeated impartial assessment.

    Like

  18. bluegrue says:

    Anthony, you claim (emphasis added)
    The central point then is, on the SST map, why is 0.00 to 0.5 temperature anomaly and -0.5 to 0 i.e “near normal range” indicated as yellow for slightly above normal and blue for slightly below normal?

    Inspection of the very map you link to shows, that while the range 0.0°C to +0.5°C is indeed yellow, the interval -0.5°C to 0.0°C is not, it is cyan. There are no negative anomalies depicted in yellow, as you claim. BTW, not even Goddard made this claim in his post (haven’t checked the comments).

    As for “lack of a null color is the issue”, here is your image modified to have the blue and yellow nearest to zero replaced by white (the color shading is much finer than the colorcode in the scale).

    Like

  19. Anthony Watts says:

    Thanks for proving my point Ed

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    When I make a mistake, Anthony, I’ll let you know.

    And hatred? I thought that was one of the funniest posts I’ve seen in a long time — it exposes the lack of scientific action and thought among denialists (which you are not, of course, just publishing their stuff in the interest of “fairness.”)

    I think that had Mr. Goddard intended to question the color coding, he should have said so and made it explicit that his concern is the graphic alone.

    Instead, he notes the concern over the quantity of, as he terms it, “hot yellow,” which indicates a slightly warmed ocean.

    I suppose that in some odd lexicon, “slightly warmed” could be interpreted as “not warmed.” But we’re talking ocean water that was warmed by half-degree C, which is 0.9 degree F.

    Yeah, if we ignore a rise of 90% of a degree, it looks different. We sacrifice accuracy, but it looks different.

    Why not just stick with accuracy?

    I think it’s interesting that in redesigning the map to hide the incline, he used the color of sea ice, from the map’s legend.

    There are lots of ways to hide data in a map. I’m not sure of any good or noble reason to do so in this case, but if you say Mr. Goddard goofed when he hid the data, I’ll take that. An honest goof is an honest goof.

    Mr. Goddard’s history of goofs is so long, however, that one suspects design rather than innocence in this affair.

    Now take a long, cool breath, forget that it was that Ed Darrell guy you hate so much who pointed it out to you, and ask yourself: What would you do if Michael Mann changed the colors on a map to hide warming over a significant portion of the ocean? Would you feel happier if he hid minor cooling in the same way?

    Hiding information is hiding information, whether you do it honestly and innocently, or whether your intention is to spin the news.

    Here in what is shaping up to be one of the warmest years in history, following the warmest decade in history, and knowing your political views that science is loaded with evil people who deserve to be pilloried and have their e-mails stolen, I have a difficult time believing that was an innocent “correction of data,” especially since it hides what you would be expected to want to have hidden.

    Like

  21. Anthony Watts says:

    Ed, as usual, your hatred of me causes you to miss the factual point by seeing only what you wish to see. Then you do the typical labeling and denigration of people making the point you ignore.

    Hate is ugly Ed. Why not try lightening up? You’ll live longer.

    The factual point you missed is an extraordinarily simple one.

    The Sea Surface Temperature map has no “null” or zero color. See it enlarged here since you didn’t include that version with the color scale in your post above.

    Zero is a bright yellow temperature. Yellow generally indicates a warmer temperature in most weather maps. For example this one from the NWS:

    http://www.weather.gov/forecasts/graphical/sectors/conus.php

    Yellows, oranges, and reds are generally recognized by humans as being warmer colors, while greens, blues, and purples are generally considered cooler.

    The central point then is, on the SST map, why is 0.00 to 0.5 temperature anomaly and -0.5 to 0 i.e “near normal range” indicated as yellow for slightly above normal and blue for slightly below normal?

    The color choices and lack of a null color is the issue, and as Steve wrote:

    “So I tried an experiment to remove all colors between -0.5C and 0.5C anomaly (i.e normal.)”

    Goddard followed the example of NASA GISS, who gets their map correct, choosing white as a near normal color for -.2 to +.2 C

    Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    Are you prepared to argue that NASA GISS now is the “height of hoaxiness” and engages in denialism because they chose to represent a near normal SST anomaly with the color white, exactly as Steve Goddard did?

    But you wrote:

    “Goddard discovered that, if one ignores warming of small amounts, and counts it as not warming at all, the colors on a color-coded map change a lot, and look a lot cooler.”

    But you only point out one half of the experiment, claiming that Goddard removed only the warm side of near zero, and not both the warm and cold side of near zero.

    What Goddard did was to demonstrate what the map looks like with a “normal” color, white, included. He could have just as easily chosen black.

    Yet you took that and spun it into hate (denialism) and denigration with:

    “Heights of Hoaxiness”
    “You couldn’t make up such denialism if you tried. If you submitted this stuff as fiction, it couldn’t get published.”

    I predict your ego won’t let you admit this simple but important factual error on your part, and you’ll spin it, plus add some new denigration of me as you typically do. It is your MO that you can’t admit fault when it comes to things like this. Perhaps you will choose this occasion to rise above your MO. One can always hope you’ll simply write:

    “I’m sorry. I made a mistake, and I apologize to Mr. Watts and Mr. Goddard”

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,279 other followers

%d bloggers like this: