[Coloring (verb). Definition: to cause to appear different from the reality: Example: In order to influence the jury, he colored his account of what had happened]
NCDC issued their February 2014 climate report, it looked like this:
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-february-2014-us-climate-report
The colored US map (that gets top billing in the PR) can be viewed full size here. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/file/february-2014-us-divisional-temperature-ranks-mapgif
But what happens when we start showing actual temperature data instead of colored areas? Joe D’Aleo sent this map over today, that shows the same map with temperature anomalies for many major cities in February 2014 he added. And with it, is a surprise.
For example. NCDC shows Connecticut as “Near Average” according to the color assigned, but Hartford has a -5.5°F anomaly, but in California, Los Angeles is +2.6F and is shown as “Much Above Average”. You can draw other similar comparisons.
At first glance, it seems that NCDC has a clear warm bias, but I’ll also point out that these divisional ranks are made up from data from dozens to hundreds of weather stations. As we know, some weather stations are good, some are bad in the way the are maintained and produce data, so the city anomalies, while interesting and suggestive that there might be a warm bias, isn’t definitive. Apples/oranges and all that.
Now, have a look at this map which shows temperature anomalies by division. It is from NCDC also, and you can create it yourself using the Climate at a Glance plotter here: http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/cag/#app=cdo
That certainly looks different than the rank maps shown above at the top of the NCDC press release, but that is to be expected. Of course, temperature anomalies are a different animal than ranks. Ranks are statistical constructs, removed from the actual measurements by at least two calculation passes. Anomalies require generally only one calculation pass, so they are closer to the measurements, but they have the advantage of showing where the departures from “normal” are. Ranks seem to be less effective at this, IMHO.
Now here is the divisional rank map as plotted by NCDC as the companion map to the one above using the same tool at http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/cag/#app=cdo
The divisions are ranked exactly the same as the map used in the February NCDC press release, but do you notice how the colors are significantly different? The blue shade is darker over much of the country in the CAG plotter output than the one in the press release at the top.
Here is that map again for easy comparison. The difference is obvious. The colors are much lighter on the map below, the one used in the NCDC February 2014 press release.
![February-2014-US-Divisional-Temperature-Ranks-Map[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/february-2014-us-divisional-temperature-ranks-map1.gif)
And just to be complete, here are the average temperatures for those divisions, what NCDC calls “values” on the selector tool. It looks a bit more natural for what we’d expect in February, doesn’t it?
My point to all this? Perceived CONUS temperature is in the eye of the map maker and the beholder.
You can create different impressions by choosing color schemes and what maps you put front and center in reports such as NCDC does.
Some people got bent out of shape because we ran a post from Harold Ambler who had criticized the odd way the Divisional Temperature Ranks map was presented in the February press release, which made February look warmer than measurements. Clearly, as I have demonstrated, NCDC seems to have different color schemes for the same Divisional Temperature Ranks map product; one for press releases, and another for the Climate at a Glance plotter. In a place that supposedly prides itself on standards and accuracy, I find that sloppy. Of course the maxim “close enough for government work” also comes to mind.
Most people clearly associate darker blue colors with cold, lighter blue colors, not so much, and yellows, oranges, and reds with warmth. Obviously, in the CAG plotter output of Divisional Temperature Ranks, there’s no washed out colors, and the temperature delineation by color is clear. The question is: why does NCDC need two color schemes to tell us the same thing?
If NCDC wants to avoid criticisms on map perceptions related to color, I suggest they use a single color scheme across the board, so that there won’t be any confusion or perception issues between maps used for press release and maps provided for research.
After all, do they really want people “seeing red” when they really should be seeing blue?
UPDATE: reader KenF writes:
Besides mapping representation (full disclousure, I am a professional GIS mapper), there is another issue about NCDC on presenting February temperatures that worth addressing: the way they present the section of “February 2014 Winter Cold: Historical Perspective”.
If you check their link from NCDC
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/2/supplemental/page-3/) they will provide you the (a) day-by-day temperature from Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 compared with 1981-2010 normal and (b) the coldest day of the winter compared with cold outbreaks from the station’s deeper history, by comparing the number of days with temperatures as cold or colder than the threshold occurred each year (in NCDC words).
I have particular issue with (b). Since we know what make this winter so cold is not about the record low temperatures, but rather the frequent (and prolonged) cold wave and the well-below normal AVERAGE temperautre from Dec 2013-Feb 2014. NCDC definitely aware of this and use the more fuzzy approach to represent part (a) and cherry pick the threshold on part (b).
To illustrate my point, I choose two cities from midwest: Fort Wayne IN and Minneapolis-St. Paul MN. According to Northern Indiana WFO, Fort Wayne has the 6th coldest winter (20.7F from Dec 2013 to Feb 201, or 6.7 degrees below normal) and the 19 days with low temperatures below 0F (compared with 1981-2010 normal of 6.5 days)
Then what does NCDC do? On representing average temperatures (part a), instead of showing tables and figures how they ranked with “station’s deeper history, they just do a fuzzy bar diagram in order to show “hey, we know this winter is cold, but there are still some warm days”.
Part b is ABSOLUTELY ATROCIOUS: instead of using the standard Zero F that normally used, they pick -15F as the threshold, then show there are “only” 2 days in winters with temperatures below-15F, which attempt to make it a “normal winter”!
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/us/2014/feb/thresh/tmin.USW00014827.png
Same thing can be applied to MSP. This is the 9th coldest winter for twin cities (9.7F) in history all the way from 1876 (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/journal/coldest_winters.html). According to NWS regional office, there are 50 days of below Zero F days in twin Cities from Dec 2013 to Feb 2014 (53 days if you include Zero days itself, and this figure did NOT include March), which is ranked 5th in history.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=mpx&storyid=100778&source=2
Then what does NCDC treat those facts? They pick the threshold at -20F! It effectively reduced the days below -20F to 2 days and the chart show it almost as if it is a warmer-than-normal winter!
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/us/2014/feb/thresh/tmin.USW00014922.png
Welcome to this world, as cherry picking the thresholds and moving the goalposts are NCDC expertise. We must not let their malpractice off the hook!
Below normal is coloured UV and IR?
A single standard color scheme? Imagine the kind of standard the thermists would like to impose. Perhaps not such a great idea.
I think we all know about how NCDC “presents” their maps and climate analysis. Been biased for
decades now!
Don’t give them crayons. They’ll only hurt themselves.
It simply goes to illustrate how the cross breeding of science with the media has produced a corrupt, dishonest, fraudulent, agenda driven culture that can not retain any real credibility in the public discourse. The agenda of course is put the fear of Noah into the public at large, to resonate with those ancient legends and fables of devastation and armageddon and generally scare the live s^&t out of politicians and the public so that those funds keep on coming for climate “research”. This is the biggest scam since the Catholic Church selling indulgences and whatever under fear of eternal damnation. The peddlers of this crap are out in Pastor Phelps land.
RE: DirkH says:
March 27, 2014 at 1:47 am
They won’t hurt themselves if they wear the required goggles and helmets.
I know the answer is self-obvious, but if what they’re selling is correct, why do they have to lie?
DirkH says:
March 27, 2014 at 1:47 am
Don’t give them crayons. They’ll only hurt themselves.
Caleb says:
March 27, 2014 at 1:57 am
RE: DirkH says:
March 27, 2014 at 1:47 am
They won’t hurt themselves if they wear the required goggles and helmets.
Oh how wonderful! You must have been watching British tv! I await with baited breath the next cookery show to see the great James Martin so attired just to cook an effin omlette!!!!!!! Oh what a wonderful politically correct Elf & Safety litigious world in which we live! Mod, snip as appropriate! 😉
JoanneNova: Dennis Jensen MP — Calls for audit on the BOM and CSIRO data
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/dennis-jensen-mp-calls-for-audit-on-the-bom-and-csiro-data/#comments
There were two tricks to the plot. The colors mentioned here and the period of record. The normals like -5.5 in Hartford are based only on the past 30 years of temperature and this past February was indeed much colder than the 30 year normal. The divisional ranks are based on whether the station is the record coldest (or warmest), or top 10% or top 10 (not sure) in the past 100 years. They excluded stations with shorter periods of record and even some stations with long periods of record (the Meehl trick) because they didn’t meet some other “quality” criteria.
Therefore stations like Marquette which had a record coldest February are not included. It would have been painted dark blue in the first chart. The reason is that the Marquette period of record is too short, only back to 1961 or so.
There are errors in the map perhaps due to the “quality” criteria. Several Great Plains cities with 100+ year periods of record were top 10 coldest in February but were painted light (barely perceptible) blue. I don’t have them in front of me, but will post them later when I relocate them.
Here’s some of the stations with top 10 coldest Februaries, see “February 2014 Top 10 Rankings – Highlights” in http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/publications/files/2014_02_climatesummary.pdf Those were not painted the medium blue in graphic at the top. Possibly because they were smeared with non-top-10 stations like Hansen would do, or because they didn’t meet “quality” criteria like Meehl would do. “Quality” in this case really means has good urban heat island warming characteristics.
Put something on the web and if it has holes someone will always point it out. Many years ago i did an experiment of putting increasing subtle and obscure mistakes in posts on boards to see what would happen. They were always corrected.
The big selling point of ipcc and the rest they tell us its peer reviewed. However there is a divergence between the peer reviewed stuff and what is presented to the public. In IPCC presentations to the public the caveats are taken out but in their own videos the ipcc groups talk about the caveats. However they use the ‘peer review’ authority to sell the presentations to the public which haven’t been reviewed by anyone.
Anyone who challenges the misleading presentations to the public gets shouted down by those saying ‘the IPCC are peer reviewed’ and so claim peer review status for the public presentations which have no such status.
The co2 dogma presentations for public consumption are sexed up like the iraq dossier or like the information in Powell’s WMD speech to the UN.
Peer review is one thing. The Looking Glass World and Flying Circus of snake oil presentations to the public another.
Here’s an apropos book on Amazon, How to Lie with Maps, at http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Maps-Mark-Monmonier/dp/0226534219/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395915918&sr=1-1&keywords=how+to+lie+with+maps+2nd+edition
A reviewer stated, “To show how maps distort, Monmonier . . . covers all the typical kinds of distortions from deliberate oversimplifications to the misleading use of color.”
They use different saturation levels for the colors as well. You can check it out in PS using the HSB color space.
Below average – 12% saturation
Above average – 44% saturation
Much below average – 85% saturation
Much above average – 99% saturation
For “normal”, they must pick the coldest handful of years over the past 30 as a baseline. Because Gail will tell you that NC was not near normal. Nor was her neighbor to the north. Of course it does compare well with the coldest winter in the past 30 years. So that must be normal to them.
Apropos book? How about a classic; The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward R. Tufte
http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Display-Quantitative-Information/dp/0961392142
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/
Climate obsession has corrupted nearly every area of society.
Warming of 2 to 4 degrees is “Much above Average” while cooling of 8 to 9 degrees is merely “Below Average”? Climastrologists want us to believe warming is more significant than cooling by more than 2 to 1!
Fraud: deceit, trickery, intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
These people are not scientists.
Alan the Brit says:
March 27, 2014 at 2:38 am
” I await with baited breath…”
__________________________
Trying to catch a crawdad?
If you enjoy yourself/be a sad bugger and look at the NOAA maps over the past century or so, you can learn a lot of interesting things about USA weather.
Here are a few which stare out often:
1. The continent often splits in half with regard to temperature, precipitation but the direction of the divisor might be north-south, it might be NW-SE. I can’t remember seeing any SW-NE, but I might be wrong there. The very cold winters of the northern mid-West are often not mirrored on the West Coast.
2. Maine’s climate is often out of synch with the trends of much of the rest of the country.
3. If you look at a variety of states across the map, you may find that one trend in one year in one state may tend to get repeated in another one, two or three years after. Why I have no idea but there may be something in that.
If you wanted your kids to learn a few things about the US climate, you could do worse than sit down a few evenings and look at a few charts, whilst tabulating on an Excel spreadsheet anything you find interesting.
They are only the agency of record that maintains US and world temperature histories.
They are also the agency of record which implements the adjustment algorithms to account for changes in the manner that temperatures are recorded.
And they are not objective as they have proved over and over again.
This is not the proper segregation of duties which would occur in most other areas of commercial, public policy, money-handling, protecting henhouse activities.
This relationship really has to be changed.
The map and accompanying text are brilliant examples of deception.
I was unable to discern the light blue at all initially. At first glance, any reasonable person would see lots of warming with only a small spot of cooling. Kudos to the deceptive creators of that map.
Now if only they would use their powers for good.
Progressives take quotes out of context, cherry pick data, mis-use and mis-apply analytical methods, spin, and just plain lie in order to further their agenda.
Conservatives take quotes out of context, cherry pick data, mis-use and mis-apply analytical methods, spin, and just plain lie in order to further their agenda.