Recently I had some of my readers comment that they thought that The Weather Channel and USA Today (which uses TWC graphics) temperature maps seemed to look “hotter”. They suspected that the colors had changed. I tend to watch such things since my own company (IntelliWeather) produces similar maps.
I searched Google images for some saved older TWC maps, but found none. So I can’t be absolutely sure they have or have not changed. But looking at the color scheme, nothing sticks out in my recollection of the temperature map colors.
But I decided that it would be an interesting exercise to compare USA national temperature maps from the commonly used services today. I saved national CURRENT temperature isotherms/gradient maps from around 03Z (11PM Eastern Time) tonight. All were generated within about an hour of each other.
What I found was surprising. Here they are in alphabetical order:
Intellicast: (probably the ugliest national temp map I’ve ever seen)
IntelliWeather:
NOAA-NWS:
Unisys:
Weather Central:
Weather Channel:
WeatherForYou:
Weather Underground:
A couple of notes on the graphics: The Weather Channel does not show their color key, nor does IntelliCast. From experience it appears the with the exception of the IntelliWeather map, all maps have fixed color schemes. The IntelliWeather map uses a sliding scale of color based on the max and min temps presented in the data. Also, I tried to include AccuWeather, but could not locate a current national temperature map from that company. They had everything else but that.
UPDATE: I decided that even though AccuWeather did not have a CURRENT temperature map, the color and color key on their HIGH TEMPERATURE FORECAST map would suffice for this comparison, since it a similar range of temperatures presented, from (50’s to 90’s) so here it is:
Note the color scale and where the perceived “cooler” colors start on the AccuWeather map.
So what do you think?
Is it just me or does there appear to be a warm bias in the color temperature presentation of the majority of providers shown here? Just an FYI, I designed my color scheme for the IntelliWeather Map in 2001, well before I started blogging, so please no suggestions that I skewed this comparison with my own map color scheme.
Along those lines, I’ll point out that the color choices are usually done either by a meteorologist, or a graphic artist/programmer or both. Usually the color scheme is the result of the input from a couple people. In my case, myself and my graphic artist made the choice. In places like TWC or AccuWeather, the choice may be made initially by one or two then approved by a larger group.
The point I’m trying to make is that each map represents the color and temperature perception of the presenting organization, as I don’t know of any “standard” for map colors used for air temperature presentation. Having said that, somebody will probably put one in front of me that I’ve never known about. 😉
The Australian BoM quietly reduce the isotherem interval now and then, finishing up with darker red for the same temp, making the map look “hotter” – y’ gotta watch ’em.
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.
This is one of the most extreme examples of this practice. The mistake they make here was to include a temperature scale. For this type of fraud to work, you don’t want to include a verifiable scale.
Here is the animation.
http://www.john-daly.com/USGCRP/USGCRP_Animate.gif
Here is the full report.
Coloring the Models: Climate Change through Color Change
http://www.john-daly.com/USGCRP/index.htm
Mike
REPLY: I put this on the main page, thanks. – Anthony
[…] 2008 NOTE: Mike alerted me in comments about this article he wrote along the lines of my story on Color and Temperature: Perception is everything. So I thought this would be good to examine again. This article below is re-posted from John […]
AW,
we dont need 100% coverage to do the statistical analysis. Effectively what you have is a sample of the population of stations. A healthy sample. Kenneths regression corrects for possible sampling bias by looking at lat and lon and alt.
When you add the 40 stations one would hope there would be more 1&2 sites
but that isnt necessary. Anyway, invite him to do a guest post. Its a straightforward statistical analysis that demonstrates that CRN rating matters.
looking at the trend lines in his work you can clearly make a case that class5 sites should be taken out of any dataset.
REPLY: The stations I’m adding fill in some significant hole sin the midwest. So I think it is important. I could have claimed a healthy sample at 33% but true or not it would meet with a lot of criticism. I see the value of the analysis, but at the same time I am keenly aware of the issues with coverage and the criticisms that will bring. Thus, I see continuing the survey equally important.
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.
The liberal media is using subliminal messages in weather charts in order to brainwash you into believing the hoax called global warming.
Hmm now I’m even more confused, because the numbers don’t match the colors on the IntelliWeather map.
Anthony,
There is something seriously wrong with the color temperature scale which Intellicast is using in the graphic which you referenced.
http://www.intellicast.com/National/Temperature/Current.aspx
It is really comprised to two graphics.
A color temperature scale:
http://images.intellicast.com/images/legends/CurrentTemps.gif
And the actual color temperature map:
http://images.intellicast.com/WeatherImg/CurrentTemps/usa.jpg
There is one very big problem; the color temperature scale is a low resolution GIF file, while the color temperature map is a high resolution JPG file. The color pallets in each graphic file are totally unrelated. I use ACD Photo Editor and the difference is unbelievable. The colors don’t match at all.
The Intelliweather is more consistent.
http://www.intelliweather.com/popup/us_citymap_popup.htm
The color temperature scale and map are in one high resolution JPG file but there is no numeric calibration scale for temperatures, which is a serious short coming.
The NOAA graphic looks very good until you start analyzing it in detail and then some of the short comings become obvious. For example the color pallet is inconsistent. It is very easy to extract colors with a virtual eyedropper and plot the Red/Green/Blue components for the NOAA color temperature scale or any other color temperature map for that matter. Here is the NOAA color extraction vs. temperature.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/NOAA_Color_Scale.gif
Try it your self, it is very easy to do with any decent photo editor.
We need to establish some guidelines for color temperature maps.
1. The color temperature scale and map must be in the same graphic.
2. The color temperature scale must be calibrated for temperature.
3. The color temperature scale must use reasonable minimum and maximum values for the time of year.
4. The color transition must be uniform and consistent over the temperature range.
The color temperature map may be a deliberate distraction and should be ignored, other than to determine what is esthetically pleasing; we should focus of the color temperature scale itself. That needs to be done is collect a number color temperature maps for various times of the year, rank them and then plot the Red/Green/Blue components of the color temperature scale to determine what does and doesn’t work. This could become a guideline for meteorologists.
This would be a good project for a meteorology undergraduate program.
Mike
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 )
It only looks hot…
Summertime, and the living is generally on the warm side. That’s pretty much a given, particularly in my neck of the woods. I’d be suspicious, though, were someone to try to make me think it was hotter than it really……
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.
[…] blue light has a higher energy, and thus temperature, than red light. Watts has a recent post about Color and Temperature: Perception is everything. He questions, “Is it just me or does there appear to be a warm bias in the color temperature […]
Mark (13:06:59) :
“Let me put it another way, there are only three primary colors”
Red, green, and blue are the primary additive colors. The true primaries.
Yellow, magenta, and cyan are the subtractive primaries.
“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?”
No – you just switched to talking about talking about the spectrum instead of primary colors. Roy G Biv and all that.
“I can’t believe that such an ignorant post exists or that I am actually taking the time to reply to it.”
Me either. Primary colors and spectra are so grade school science.