Color and Temperature: Perception is everything

Accuweather maps are here
From the main page, mouse over Maps on the navigation bar across the top of the page, select Temperature, and then select the map you want.
REPLY: High or low forecast maps, no current temps, been there done that

Warm bias? If you just ‘see’ the colors, it looks like we’re in the midst of a great heatwave with the Unisys map the worst of all, giving an impression of the country in the midst of a great heat wave with temps in the mid-90s {just from the heat generated by the colors}. The NOAA map looks most realistic, with the greens feeling comfortable. I like their color scale the most. Pity we can’t see a pre-AGW color map.

Tell you the truth, the pictures are kind of scary, especially since you lined all those red maps one after the other.
For IntelliMap, I wonder why you choose to display entire band of purple, green, blue, red rather than have the map color reflect the color chart of the current temperature. Wouldn’t that make more sense?
Sylvia
REPLY: No I don’t think it would, because then you can never see at a glance where cool areas are. Just look at all the other maps. A sliding color scale makes more sense to me, but what the heck do I know?

Actually, I like your map the best – the Intelliweather one. And I’m not kissing ass either. I have no stake in it. I like the sliding scale because you can tell at a glance how the air is moving across/over the country.
As for the rest (all but the Intelliweather and the NOAA), it’s like they’ve added gradations of more oranges to make anything above 50 seem like a heat wave.

The problem with all temperature maps comes down to whether you want to show temps relative to each other, relative to the season or relative to the norm.
Hence @ accuweather it’s all red (season), at yours it appears to be each other and TWC and the rest seasonal. (IMHO)
It’s extremely difficult thing to do because many people find the change in colour shades a little awkward to percieve accurately.
never the less they are all good a

Good post Anthony!
This one was fun!

Great point, from looking at the various maps, it is pretty obvious that although the temps are basically the same across all the maps, the ones from sources “pushing AGW agenda” tend to have more traditional hotter colors.
I have used links to your intelliweather maps in some local discussion boards with the twist on the “blue vs red states” to show where the cooler weather is.
Keep up the great work.
P.S. Anthony, I’m working on an article concerning that I call “The Great Trans-Siberian Heat Wave” and how the supposed recent “global warming” in northern Asia is basically driving average global temps, especially GISS. What would I need to do to submit that for consideration for posting on your website?
REPLY: Send it via email, see my email address coming to your inbox. One requirement to have it published: you have to use your real name. I won’t allow any publication under cowardly non de plumes.

Most of the weather agncies sell ads, not weather news.
If a summertime temp map has a lot of blue on it ( and I do think 60 degrees is cold for a summer high ) then how can you have an ad for Lemonade or a new AC unit?
Ditto for winter temps.

This is an interesting comparison. One thing that sticks out to me is the large amount of smoothing that’s done with most of these maps. Compare, for example, the NOAA temperature map (the most highly resolved of the set) with the weatherunderground’s map. If you compare the temperatures in California, you see the detail in the NOAA map shows the cooler temperatures in the mountains, hotter temperatures in the desert areas, etc. This is totally missed in the weatherunderground map. In fact, I would venture to say that the weatherunderground map is misleading, and thus wouldn’t view it as an accurate quantitative presentation.
In addition, I think all of the maps should have a color bar which shows the relationship between the colors and the temperature. Otherwise, the contours presented are truly useless, and only give us an qualitative, approximate view of actual temperatures. Of course, we could talk about what the “actual” temperature really is, but that would lead us back to the surface stations project, right? :^).
Keep up the good work, Anthony.
Frank K.

8 of 9 look hotter.

I have struggled with this concept myself. I used to work on a energy trading floor and discussed visualization with our meteorologists on a regular basis. On the temperature maps, they would produce a map that was only shades of blue andred, but would keep the color consistent across the year – I liked the consistency, but thought the rest of the color spectrum should be used as well.
This blog post at Flowing Data and the paper it references discuss the idea of perception of color and the impact in visualization. Sounds like it would be good read for meteorologists.

I don’t believe I’m saying this, but I like the NOAA color scheme. I think most people would see 70 deg temps as optimal, and green is a “good” color (green grass, green = go, green = ok). I can look at that map and see where I would be hot, or where I would want a jacket.

Interesting to see how many schemes have been tried. I react to them a little differently, which I agree is simply a matter of taste: I much prefer a constant color/temperature match, rather than a sliding, relative scale. I like to be able to compare December and June on the same scale, and thus using the full spectrum to cover all concievable temperature ranges makes sense to me. On that basis, I most prefer the Weather Central color scheme, although I would bump it up by one shade. (40’s are not a “green” feel to me, I put that at getting pretty damn cold. But then I like hot weather.) You’re right about that intellicast map; that is just butt-ugly. And I think Weather Underground (do they have a meteorologist names Ayres?) and Weather For You have made an error by adding white and pink to the top of their temperature scale. This is not an accurate spectrum at all, and serves only to push the reds and oranges farther on down the temperature scale.
Accuweather has too narrow a temperature scale and too few colors on it. This makes their map look like a childs crayon drawing – annoying at best.

Reminds me of Al Gore’s movie, in which satellite images of Katrina showed the the Gulf of Mexico as red, as if it was boiling hot.
Clearly the NOAA and IntelliWeather maps seem a lot cooler than the others based on the psychology of the colors. The big question is, have these organizations changed their color schemes in recent years in such a way as to make them appear hotter.

Well, not all – but the ultrared ones that show “50” as orange-red are obviously shown to give a general impression – one of heat…

All that is needed is flames coming out of the hotter regions.

There is definitly a warm bias in the presentation of temperatures. I noticed most media outlets will use “warm colors” only in thier temp depictions. Rarely do you see a combination of warm and cool colors based upon seasonal averages. For the unitiated it does appear that the nation is baking under AGW induced heat waves.
Another thing I noticed with a few weather companies, is the warm bias in thier long range forecasts (usually 7-15 days out). For my location I kept a record of the 15 day forecast temps and compared them to the actual recorded highs. This was done for Winter, Spring, and now Summer. In each case, the forecast was averaged 5-8 degrees F too warm. Never was the forecast too cold -which is strange if one considers that occaisonally the models will over forecast a cold front or its timing.
One other thing I noticed is that during the summer months, most forecast agencies under forecast cloud cover. In the half dozen tests I performed I found that when the short range forecasts were too high the main reason was the agency under-forecasted cloud cover.
Have things gotten so bad that even forecasters are now fudging thier forecasts in order to pay homage to AGW? Or are thier skills really that bad?

I prefer the NOAA-NWS map. It’s absolute regardless of season.
That’s the most sensible approach since 60 degrF in Anchorage or Miami feels the same (well, except to Miamians, who start dying when temperatures dip into the 40’s).

Anthony,
I have always wondered about the spread of colors in the IntelliWeather map. For example, in the IntelliWeather map shown above, why is NY in blue at 75 F and NM orange at 76 F? Similarly, why is Montreal deep blue at 76 F and LA is yellow at 67 F? Are other temperatures surrounding these cities that determine color so that the temperatures of these large cities are not representative of the region? I’ve noticed this mish-mash of colors is worse during the summer than during the winter. I’m assuming it’s likely a programming thing. By the way, one day I do plan to purchase the IntelliWeather software.
REPLY: It is automatically smoothed, we apply a gradient rather than isotherms, and if only a couple of datapoints exist in an area that are significantly different (like NM mountains) then it will be averaged out.
Our map was designed for TV use, so it was a choice mostly for the low-res NTSC signal.

Many in NW Europe would consider anything over 70 deg F to be “hot.” For me, it’s anything over 90 deg F (I live in one of the “cooler” parts of the SW US). For those who live inland from me, 100 deg F is where “hot” begins.
You can see where problems may arise in these color schemes.

Anthony– Do your color meanings change with the seasons? Because 52 is cool in summer, but hot in winter.
I think for weather news for the US on television, changing colors with the seasons is sort of good. After all, if it’s 60 in January in Chicago, I consider that “war”. But I consider 60 in July “cool”. When watching television, I know the date, and know I’m thinking “in the US”, and I automatically calibrate for the season.
In that context, as in indication of whats warm or cold today, your map is much, much better than UNISYS’s map which makes it appear the midwest is experiencing infernal heat. (I’ll be mowing the lawn today after it dries a bit. I can assure you I will not feel over heated.) In fact as a quick look at “weather in the US, today”, Itelliweather is the best.
(For tv weather reporting this month, your map tells “the truth” relative to what I think viewers want to know best. The next best is NOAA– which is not designed for TV! )
I think the NOAA maps are best for their intended purposes. These maps getused for different things– comparing Jan to July etc. So, I think their colors are best for illustrating seasonal variations. If you need to pick a stable color, green for 70 is perfect. 70 is close to the temperature people prefer when setting A/C or heating. June in Chicago is beatiful– and NOAA is showing that!
Honestly, I think intellicast is the worst map in all possible ways:
* the colors are hideous. (Did they add grey to those? They are all depressing shades of red/orange/blue green.)
* it’s too busy. The superposition of the lines to mark 5 degree increments makes it too busy. (And there is no way I would see which likes are 70 vs 75 or 80 watching that on tv. I have a hard time on the screen.)
* right now, Chicago looks “hot”. That’s wrong for tv weather casting and for a newspaper. In my opinion, it’s on the cool side of perfect. (I like warmer weather than most people and think 85 is perfect. My brothers in law think it’s on the warm side of perfect. They like 65.)
REPLY: The IntelliWeather scale is relative to the data, the color remains the same through the seasons, but you’ll see less oranges/reds in winter and more cool blues and violets. When a cold wave hits, you’ll see it coming.
I also offer an animation with isopleths, see this:
http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/templine_nat_640x480_img.htm
Note how the you can watch the cooldowns and warmups. Hard isotherms don’t animate well for TV.

Ok, I’m looking at the IntelliWeather map (above) and I’m confused. It’s 52 degrees in Moosonee, Ontario which shows some purple colour indicating Cool. It’s 56 degrees in San Francisco where the colour is green/blue indicating mild to warm. And its 64 degrees in Seattle where the colour is the same as Moosonee. Boise (80) seems to be in the same colour zone as Los Angeles (67).
Do the colours mean anything? The map seems to indicate that 67 degrees in Great Fall is much cooler than 67 degrees in LA. No wonder people from the southern USA are disappointed when they come to Canada in the summer and don’t find any snow. ;^)
REPLY: Try this version: http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/templine_nat_640x480_img.htm

Thanks, that chart shows overnight temperatures which were admittedly cooler. It does indicate that it was downright frigid in the Vancouver, BC region where it was about 52F last night while at the same time it was just mild(ish) in Winnipeg (54F).
I suppose it all depends on where your personal set point is. I was recently in Peru, it was about 25C to 32C during the day, we were walking around in shorts, the locals were wearing sweaters and parkas.
Here’s the Canadian take on colour http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weathermaps/.
From my vantage point, I don’t see how the colours help. I’d rather see a map with no colour, just the temperature readings. I can decide for myself whether its warm or cold.
The colours on the IntelliWeather charts are much more pleasing to the eye than the other charts though.

Speaking of cooler and graphs.
Take a look at this. Its pretty stunning – a 2-3 Degree C cooler this year. I do not see any Hurricanes forming at all for at least a month if not longer – if at all this year.
SST in the Carib this year:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2008178casst.png
SST in 2006.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006178casst.png

It’s clear the farther you are along with your support for the global warming hoax, the more red you see. I would say 72-75 degrees F would be about the right pivot point.

My favorite color coded map is at:
http://www.findlocalweather.com/weather_maps/temperature_north_america.html

I think I would almost like to see them in anomaly fashion where “normal” for that time of year is in some neutral color like green and the more above normal moving through yellow into red and colder than normal going through blue to violet.
So in the summer an area in “blue” would be experience cooler than normal temperatures. In other words, you use the average temperature for an area to determine the center. That would require additional resources to generate that map, though. You would need to generate an “average” map, and then overlay that with a “current” map and the “difference” between then gives you the color value.

Pierre,
Temp looks normal, but I am starting to get really annoyed by discussions of temp. We need to be looking at Heat capacities and flux from here on in.
Take a look at the Hurricane Heat Potential maps. Its even more stunning. There is no way to get anything over a weak TS going this year in the Eastern Caribean. Make a movie from 2005 forwards my modding the URL.
Now:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2008178ca.jpg
2006:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006178ca.jpg
Method:
The tropical cyclone heat potential, is defined here as a measure of the integrated vertical temperature from the sea surface to the depth of the 26.C isotherm. This parameter is computed from the altimeter-derived vertical temperature profiles estimates in the upper ocean. The temperature profiles are estimated using four points: (a) the sea surface temperature obtained from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission’s (TRMM) Microwave Imager (TMI) fields, (b) the altimeter-estimates of the 20.C isotherm within a two-layer reduced gravity scheme (Goni et al, 1996), (c) the depth of the 26.C isotherm from a climatological relationship between the depths of the 20.C and 26.C isotherm.
My Comment:
Just from looking at the HHPs, there is a HUGE amount of heat “missing” from the Western Central Atlantic as compared to just a few years ago. Its just not getting into the water like it used to. You can see the trend from 2006 as being down. Typically TS form in the moderate HHP water in the Atlantic and then intensify as they move into the higher HHP waters of the W Carib and Gulf and Atlantic Gulf Stream. If the TS cannot form in the traditional grounds for them, then that will cut down if not eliminate the numbers of storms altogether.

In answer to Chris Hanley:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is not respectable. They have been caught using Hansen’s methods of fraudulent data presentation. They also make statements such as X-part of the country has been subject to record temperatures, when they really mean the 21st century. They keep misrepresenting rainfall data – claiming drought when it clearly it is near or above average.
Herman Dobrowolski
Queensland Australia

Smokey wrote: ” Only the current temps are accurate. Maybe they’re just inept forecasters, but like JP, I’ve noticed that they never err on the low side.”
I disagree that only the current temps are accurate. I’ve been monitoring O’Hare and Palwaukee fields for several months using the Predator for temp info from those two sources and three electronic thermometers for local measurements. Although the three local readings are in sync, the O’Hare and Palwaukee fields can be so out of whack it’s laughable. I should mention that O’O’Hare is about 30 miles south southwest and Palwaukee is roughly 10 miles south southwest.
Although the UHI effect could be impacting both to some degree, it’s inconceivable they could be so far different than my reading. Another example is the sky condition: although the sky in my area may be cloudy, both Palwaukee and O’Hare (but especially Palwaukee) may report clear skys! Since I’m on a high piece of ground and can see for 50-60 miles or so, I’m at a loss of figuring out how they get such readings!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate project
http://www.climateclinic.com

AW,
You NEED to look at Kenneths work on CRN1-5.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169#comment-266801
As you know, JohnV, Kenneth and I all went at the analyis is different manners.
Kenneth is very diligent and his approach is impeccable.
Please have a look. It confirms some of the things I found about the CRN5,
but with a different approach.

It may be the fact that TWC recently went HD, and a lot of the maps are based off what is used for television.

Well, I’m one of those people that found 100F to be in the comfortable range when I lived between Sacaton and Casa Grande, Arizona; in Florida, the 80s are my idea of perfect weather.

It’s just that your color scheme is horrible. You have white for the 30s. What do you do for the 20s? 10s? 0s? Beyond that? There’s at least 40 degrees of temperatures that you don’t have a color for. That’s why you think there’s a bias: your colors are off-center, not theirs. If you showed your map from February, 100% of Canada and half the US would just be white, and you couldn’t tell if it was 30 degrees or negative 60. It’s sad that you took all that time to notice the “problem,” research it, and make this post without realizing it’s you that’s off.
There’s no bias. They need to center yellow/green at the middle of the yearly temperature range so that there are different colors for the hottest and for the coldest temperatures throughout the year. Not everything is political to everyone else, even if it is to you.

Hmm now I’m even more confused, because the numbers don’t match the colors on the IntelliWeather map.

I normally use Accuweather, primarily for radar. I believe they had altered their radar colorings so that there is more red (indicating heavy precipitation). I seems now that every storm has red and even magenta spots in the middle of storm cells when last year about the same time, red spots appeared very rarely. I suspected they changed the colors because the first few times my reaction was that a strong storm was headed my way; I was much more likely to check back thinking the storm was severe ( and thus contributing to greater clickthrough rates on accuweather.com )

I’m not sure what the confusion is. In all the maps you’ve posted the color key is completely legible and clear. 50-60 is yellow to light orange, 60-70 is light orange, 80-90 dark orange, 90 – 100 red, 100+ dark red to purple.
How does this have any relation to global warming? Honestly? Do you think that the colors used on the weather man’s charts are causing glaciers to melt?
That NOAA one looks pretty nice, but how does it handle temperatures lower than 30 degrees? In fact, the blue scale is quite small on the NOAA at a 10-15 degrees spread, whereas with the other models, the blue scale is closer to a 30-35 degrees spread.
Let me put it another way, there are only three primary colors. If you put blue at 0 and red at 100, then yellow is in the middle at 50. Between 50 and 100 will all be shades of yellow -> orange -> red. Get it?
I can’t believe that such an ignorant post exists or that I am actually taking the time to reply to it.