What’s wrong with this picture?

I invite readers to list all the things wrong with this bit of agitprop by Ed Hawkins (a lead author in AR6; perhaps this foreshadows the tone of the report). It’s going viral on the Left.

Warming stripes” at Climate Lab Book.

‘A new set of climate visualisations, communicating the long term rise in temperatures for particular locations as a changing set of colours from blue to red. Each stripe represents the temperature of a single year, ordered from the earliest available data to now.”

Here shows graphics for Central England, continental US, Toronto, and (below) “Annual global temperatures from 1850-2017. The colour scale represents the change in global temperatures covering 1.35°C.”

His Tweet: https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/999242147135188993

The inevitable fawning articles in the media: “This Has Got to Be One of The Most Beautiful And Powerful Climate Change Visuals We’ve Ever Seen” at Science Alert — “We are headed into the red.” The author is listed (with unintentional irony) at “Staff – Science as Fact.”

h/t to Larry Kummer

242 thoughts on “What’s wrong with this picture?

  1. Shift the zero point, or use a different color scheme, and one will get an entirely different subjective impression. This is just more Kabuki theater to influence the scientifically illiterate.

      • My understanding is that the original French flag has the red and blue sections velcroed to the underlying colour, so they can be easily removed in the event France goes to war.
        If they adopt this sub-Mondrian work, their surrender will be delayed almost indefinitely.
        And I enjoy cheap French red wine!

    • Clyde
      Yes but that means this would be an EXCELLENT method to display the difference between the unadjusted temperature record and the adjusted temperature record. I wonder if Ed Hawkins realized that.

      • Adjusted temperatures are LOWER than raw temperatures.!!!!
        Adjustments COOL the SST record ( 70% of the world)
        and slighly warm the SAT ( land record) 30% of the world.
        the NET of all adjustments is COOLING THE RECORD
        of course you have been fed a steady diet of cherry picking which focuses on the most heterogenous record, the US record, which is 2% of the world. The US record has the most adjustments because of all the changes made: Changes to Time of observation, changes in location, and changes in sensors.
        Luckily there are MULTIPLE approaches for adjusting data and reducing the bias. These methods have all been tested, and the agree with each other.

      • Adjusted temperatures are LOWER than raw temperatures.!!!!

        Why are you saying this like it somehow invalidated what we are saying? We know the Climate Scammers have cooled the past to increase the slope, and to get rid of inconveniences like the warm 1930’s or the earlier warm periods.
        Heck, your side has even adjusted the temperatures from 20 years ago! How do you ‘bust’ the Pause? By reducing the highs you claimed we were reaching back when you started this Scam. That 98 super El Nino looked really good at the the end of the Hockey Stick, but it really turned into a problem as the years went by and the Temperature didn’t go past it. But look at it now! Most of the Temperature Records don’t even show a bump in 98 anymore.
        You tell me we can’t be sure of the temperatures back a hundred years ago, and I’ll agree the might be off, but you tell me we can’t even be sure about the ones since the whole Global Warming scam got started? I’m just going to assume that the ones you’re taking RIGHT NOW are just as flawed. You’ll probably be adjusting them all in a few years too.
        Congratulations, the Climate Faithful have successfully convinced me that the Global Temperature recording network is unsuitable for getting the resolution we’d need to monitor Climate Change, and that they have no real interest in actually fixing it.

      • “Why are you saying this like it somehow invalidated what we are saying? We know the Climate Scammers have cooled the past to increase the slope, and to get rid of inconveniences like the warm 1930’s or the earlier warm periods.”
        WRONG. If you look at the total record the past is WARMED to REDUCE the slope. You are a parrot
        and so you parrot what you hear others say. the DATA , ALL the data shows that the past is WARMED
        to reduce the overall slope.
        Again, you have only looked at 30% of the data, the land. where the past is adjusted down, or cooled.
        But GLOBAL TEMPS include SST and SST trends are DECREASED.
        heck you even get Karl et al wrong. it REDUCED the overall trend.

      • Does it matter what the global temp is doing we hit a new record high CO2 emission in 2017 and we were up 4% on that for first quarter of 2018. The people have voted loud and clear and if it does become a big issue the real scientists and engineers will tackle it.

      • “Again, you have only looked at 30% of the data, the land. ”
        As if you don’t that how little of the Earth has actual measurements before 1980, and most of the land data is the US. As if you never read
        As if you don’t know how dodgy the Karl paper was.
        As if you don’t know that “Adjustments COOL the SST record” is meaningless when talking about anomalies. Adjustments make what warming occurred fit the narrative better ie instead of most of the warming occurring before fossil fuel power exceeded that harnessed from horses, at a rate far above the 21st C, it now correlates better with All Gore’s travel itinerary.

      • Mosher,
        You said, “Adjustments COOL the SST record ( 70% of the world).” It is my recollection that Karl argued that there was no hiatus by warming the SSTs of the ARGO records to agree with the warmer inferior ship water intake temperatures. Do I have that wrong?

      • So Mr Mosher, why would those past records be ‘warmed’ and recent records ‘cooled’ as you say to reduce the trend slope? Why would you do that? Obviously the raw data is not accurate for the purpose of determining a global trend. I get that and the basic reason for that is that the historical instruments were put in place for local reasons and were never conceived of as part of a global system. Accordingly their fitness for purpose is fundamentally at issue. Fiddle Fixing is not exactly the ideal solution to crap data.
        Land thermometers tell you the actual local temperature whatever the adjacent conditions. If the local (HI affected or otherwise) conditions alter then the temperature readings alter irrespective of what it might have been if the HI creating elements were not there. HI effects can be up to 10˚C or more. From research Melbourne in Australia is estimated to have a peak UHI of about 5˚C near the CBD tapering out over the suburbs.
        Sea temperatures were initially taken via a canvas bucket at the surface to check the cooling system effectiveness vs the engine power output. They were later taken at depth at the sea water inlets fitted near the hull bottom so there is a water depth factor in that at least. Under manual reading there was an incentive to understate temperatures so as to cover for overpowering engines to make port on schedule. That understatement might easily be a degree or two and I suggest that was systemic for the reasons above being a pretty much constant consideration.
        The issue is not that temperatures have been adjusted but that the amount of adjustment can be many times greater than the trend over a century or so. In other words the fundamental accuracy of the whole exercise is in question. You might well adjust the raw data up or down just as you say if only to cover up just how wildly uniformative the raw data is and all you are left with is adjusted data that is still uniformative in any objective sense but it at least seems or can be presented as better than the raw stuff. In effect it is a marketing exercise and what we have now is “New Improved Temperature Data” , i.e. like it was some “new improved” washing powder.
        You really have no basis to be trumpeting the veracity of this crap data. Get over yourself.

    • ‘What’s wrong with this picture?’ … its a fragment of cherry-picked background noise in the context of the entire Holocene! … nothing more than natural variation …

    • Where is 1868 at only 0.18 degree less than 2017?
      Where is 1834 at only 0.07 degree less than 2017?
      or 1779 at 0.17 degree less than 2017? (0.17 degree warming in 238 years)
      BTW, CET goes back to 1659. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
      Since the IPCC generally regards about 1950 as the start of man made climate change, one notes that CET shows 1949 to be 0.06 degree WARMER than now!

    • It seems to me the key words in Hawkins narrative are “visualisations, “communicating”, “blue to red”. In other words this is ‘agit prop’ ( aka ‘science communications’, surely one of the great oxymorons of our time) where every picture tells a BS story and almost no amount of words can undo the propaganda effect. It has SFA to do with science rather is a form of ‘art’ that has dropped its pants and bent over for the benefit of politics. NB I initially typed “politrics” – how appropriate :-).
      Given that we have had naturally occurring Ice Ages then their end, why on earth would you use blue to red for the temperature range in question? Surely blue-green-yellow-orange-red would be a proper scientific representation in general and in this case blue to greeny blue or even green is a proper range. Even the colour palette has been hockey schticked!

      • Why not show a similar graph going back, say several 100,000 years, using the same color range. Might give a better perspective on natural variation.

      • Spot on Jim but giving a better perspective, in fact any perspective at all, is the exact opposite of what eco nutter agit prop is about, unfortunately.

  2. Less than a degree and a half? Really? What color would he use for a five degree rise? Infrared?

    • PURPLE!!! Not because it at the same end of the spectrum but because it is more SCARY!!!
      Thats what the ABC does on its weather maps in Oz. RED kicks in at about 30˚C, which is just warm in Oz and its PURPLE when it gets to 40˚C. So, in summer most of the continent is always PURPLE cos its almost the end of the world hot….

  3. Hey look, someone flattened a paint-bombed hockey stick! ;->
    I guess it’s inappropriate to ask for something like a scale for this graphic, or the raw data used to create it?

  4. Also, the pictorial doesn’t encode the error bars, which is particularly important for the older data.

      • Absolutely, the height of the color bar represents the error – and it is the same VERY LARGE error for all the data. Obvious.

    • Whaddayaknow! My cell phone barcode reader app just told me that’s worth a three dollar bill…

      • I remember this bone scaling argument from decades ago. I speculated as a callow youth that there are a many different kinds of bone structures. Birds, for example, generally have lighter and stronger bones than mammals. If an animal evolved to be larger than its ancestor’s bone structure could support then it would likely evolve a different bone structure that could accommodate the larger mass without necessarily increasing the diameter/length ratio. This lecture doesn’t discuss bone structure so we don’t know if there are structural differences in the different sized bones or if the smaller animal bones are just overbuilt. That part of the lecture leaves us hanging.

  5. It assumes a monotonic underlying process. It’s a cute mode that presumes a god-like perception.

  6. After the end of the Little Ice Age, these are the most beautiful examples of Natural climate change. We expected a warming planet after the coldest period in 10,000 years, and we got it.

  7. How idiotic. WHERE’S the SCALE ? Only 1.35 degrees C – yet ‘visually’ it is eye catching – almost that it just HAS to be more than 1.35 degrees, going ONLY from blue to red.
    And there obviously can’t be ‘error bars’ on an image such at this, which would give more information to the actual value. AND what about a ‘max/min’ that plots should have, and they should be generally in the areas of ‘max/min’ that are experienced.
    What a load of garbage this is . . .

    • I just posted the below over at the Warming Stripes site:
      “This is quite ridiculous. Over a range of only a few degrees, it goes from ‘dark blue to dark red’. AND, that range is different for different geographic locations. So no way to truly ‘compare’ change from on location to another. That really distorts one’s impression of the illustrations
      But the most absurd thing is there is no way to compare the small change in average temperature over time, to the TOTAL RANGE of temperature a given area experiences throughout the year. A few degrees (going from ‘red to blue’, vs. a TOTAL RANGE that can be , what, maybe 10, or 20, or 30 TIMES THAT much is so misleading of what is occurring.”
      I’ll check back later at that site to see if it REALLY got posted . . .

      • not sure, but my post at Warming STripes still shows (to me) to be ‘in moderation’. Yeah, right . . .that means ‘not posted’ . . . unless , does it show up to anyone else?

      • If you get banned or snipped, it means that the proper coward got your message. Take intrinsic reward from that, at least.

    • The error bars could be created by having the centre of each bar a ‘constant’ colour, with the length of that colour indicating the certainty. The colour should vary on the top end towards red (hot) depending on the upper range of 95% confidence. The lower end should be the lower limit tending towards blue (cold).
      The constant colour in the centre would have a length that also varies with the coefficient of variation (CoV) with a shorter centre length indicating a higher CoV.
      This would present the data as a temperature (sort of), the confidence in that value, and the up and down limits of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval.
      What it would show, easily and quickly, is that properly calculated uncertainty is in almost all cases greater than the variation over several decades. The tops of all the lines would be red and the bottoms all dark blue.
      More directly answering the question about what is missing, is the hot years in the 1930’s. To have a single white stripe is plainly wrong. That period should just as red as it is for the late 20-teens.

    • The error bars could be created by having the centre of each bar a ‘constant’ colour, with the length of that colour indicating the certainty. The colour should vary on the top end towards red (hot) depending on the upper range of 95% confidence. The lower end should be the lower limit tending towards blue (cold).
      The constant colour in the centre would have a length that also varies with the coefficient of variation (CoV) with a shorter centre length indicating a higher CoV.
      This would present the data as a temperature (sort of), the confidence in that value, and the up and down limits of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval.
      What it would show, easily and quickly, is that properly calculated uncertainty is in almost all cases greater than the variation over several decades. The tops of all the lines would be red and the bottoms all dark blue.
      More directly answering the question about what is missing, is the hot years in the 1930’s. To have a single white stripe is plainly wrong. That period should just as red as it is for the late 20-teens.

    • No, Martin, this stuff is not idiotic, on the contrary this linking by ‘progressives’ of their CAGW message to meaningless but nevertheless ’emotive’ images is a very clever psychological propaganda technique. After being bombarded for a while with this sort of stuff the audience unconsciously make associations between any similar ‘art’ with the CAGW meme. Then the ‘progressives’ can then use such images in their propaganda (aka Dem political articles and videos) to trigger emotional, rather than rational reactions in the brainwashed masses.
      George Orwell described this well in his novel ‘1984’, which was a warning against just this kind of creeping totalitarianism. Unfortunately modern ‘progressive’ education has whitewashed any literature with such warnings out of the curriculum, leaving the past 2 generations of school leavers (at least) dangerously ignorant of this insidious form of brainwashing.

    • Martin C,
      I posted and it’s in moderation, so it will stay that way till the cows come come home basically

    • Of course. Whether he’s smart and manipulative or just dumb as a sack of bricks, he used the a scheme that would cause an emotional reaction rather than a logical one. That’s the left for you.

  8. Spectral sensitivity of human retina to red is much broader than for blue, thanks to L type cone cells. Using this color scheme (Blue and Red), thus, encourages us to perceive red as the outstanding element in the presentation.
    Using a nonlinear scale to represent a linear process is wrong. If this is deliberately done to accentuate a point of view it is unforgivable.

  9. How many global temperature stations were there in 1850? How many airports in 1900? How many jets at those airports in 1950?

    • 1850? depends which series, dozens to over 100
      I built an Airport free database.
      The answer was the same.

  10. I thought it was a distorted photo of Saturn’s rings, turned sideways.
    What’s wrong with it? The use of red is incorrect. Mr. Hawkins should be required to wear a shirt with the letter “L” stuck on it 24 hours a day. A half degree of anything is something you can’t even feel. What’s next? Photos of eggs fried on the sidewalk in winter? Tearful photos of dogs stuck to fireplugs on walkies?
    Keep it coming, CAGWers. The more you rattle your noisemakers and the more you say stupid things, untrue things, and jump up and down and point at your own mendacity, the more the rest of us reasoning, “woke” people will slip right out of your grasp.
    Hey, I have a question: if I create a story in which the “climate” has changed and it’s set 250 years ahead, with blizzards and thundersnow in May and October and only one week of bikini weather at the end of July, will that make the CAGWers buy it and burn it as a symbolic protest because they’re afraid I might be right?

    • Good idea Sara. I’d like to see a movie based on humanity struggling to survive on an ice ball Earth set just a few hundred years in the future. Warmists need to see how much harder it would be to survive then, compared to an Earth with a temperature just a few degrees higher.

      • They already made that movie, its called “Day After Tomorrow”. Of course, all of that cold is caused by Gorebull Warming in the movie.

      • @Ricdre I love that movie so much! Its one of my favorite comedies!!
        The scene where Los Angeles gets destroyed with the ravaging pack of tornadoes- comedy gold!!
        Now I want to watch it again!

      • Actually, Jon Salmi, it’s more along the lines of ice fields slowly advancing their southern borders and people emigrating to other planets, plus a major war against an implacable enemy that likes to raid settled planets (like the aliens in War of the Worlds) and discovery of other civilizations embroiled in the same war. It’s fun. And there is an iceball/snowball planet, but it’s not discovered or settled for another 1200 years, but it’s not Earth. It is light years away from Earth.
        I don’t think Earth will go snowball again unless the breakup of the African continent causes so much tectonic disruption that the planet becomes uninhabitable by and hostile to humans. Good reason to find other more user-friendly planets, isn’t it?

      • @ Jon. There is a book that that fulfills your request. The title is “Fallen Angels” by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. Many Watt’s Up With That readers should enjoy it. A quote from Wikipedia: “The novel takes aim at several targets of ridicule: Senator William Proxmire, radical environmentalists, and mystics, such as one character who believes that one cannot freeze to death in the snow because ice is a crystal and “crystals are healing.” It also mocks ignorance in journalism, which greatly helps the main characters (for example, one “expert” cited in a news article believes that the astronauts must have superhuman strength, based on a photograph of a weightless astronaut easily handling heavy construction equipment) and the non-scientific world in general.”
        Unfortunately, it would never become a movie because it lampoons MSM and Hollywood’s worldview.

      • Richard, “stealing Nitrogen from the atmosphere” was such a good green reason…

  11. I guess this was pretty easy to dismiss on a scientific basis as it isn’t science. But you’ve all made very good points. The science is garbage! They resort to emotion because it’s all they have.

  12. What’s wrong with this picture?.
    For the die hard warmists at least.
    lt may suggest that that the longer term warming trend has now peaked.

  13. Rob,
    You probably meant 1960’s for jets at airports. In 1950 the only jets around would be military. The British Comet flew passengers in 1952 and the Boeing 707 flew in 1958…So just a decade early…but your point is taken…

    • No. That was my point exactly. Few stations 1850. No airports 1900. Few jets 1950. By 2000 there were airports and jets everywhere being used to measure temperature.

  14. I love this graphic. What it says clear and simple is this:
    We have no alarming data. All we have is ways of presenting data so that it looks alarming.

    • That really is priceless, isn’t it? Admitting to one and all that they, themselves, know that they are full of hot air (GLOBULL WARMING!!!) and just want your attention.
      Attention-seeking behavior is what happens when you take your two nieces to the grocery store and they yell as loudly as they can “Hey, Aunt Sara, did you see that guy? He’s HOT!”
      And then you have to say “They aren’t mine. I found them on the sidewalk outside a few minutes ago.”

  15. What’s the white? It goe from blue (cool) – with varying shades of blue, then a batch of essentially white bars, and suddenly – boom – red bars.
    What’s white?

    • I would like to know what is the highest temperature that is shaded blue, and what is the lowest temperature that is shaded red (pink). What is the gap between the two? 0.1 degree C or 0.01degree C?

      • Steven,
        Yeah, funny how Anthony didn’t include the labels, huh? He made it look as meaningless as possible so everyone will be able to ridicule it properly. You have to follow the link to find out the real story, as usual.
        Those who don’t like the graphics are free to comment on the page.

      • Kristi, I followed the link. Anthony relayed all of the info the source article presented, i.e. 1.35 degree C for the total range of the global temperature graphic for the period 1850-2017. No further breakdown.
        As I asked about temperature info for the switch over point from blue to red, I have to ask – Did you actually follow the link? What “real story” do you mean?? Maybe you didn’t actually read my question, either? (I know you didn’t read my name.)

  16. You all got this wrong. It’s a bar code. If a warmunist takes it to a suitable institution (eg UN, EU) building, he/she can swipe it at the front door and get thousands of taxpayer dollars, euros etc as needed.
    Apparently, it no longer works at any US government buildings but it still works well at the Houses of Parliament.

  17. Of course, there’s that blue photons are high energy and red ones lower energy. So Ed Hawkins is inadvertently saying Earth is going from a higher energy climate to a lower energy one. Oops.

  18. We all knew 2 things about it. We were rising out of the LIA when people could walk on ice from Manhattan to Staten Island, the Thames and even the Bosphorus froze over, one third of all Finns died because of frost killing crops, General Washington spirited cannons from British held Mannhattan by rolling them away on ice to New Jersey …so the progression in a gross sense should be ‘warming’.
    The other thing is jiggering of temperatures.
    Until 2007, the mid1930s-40s were hotter than the 1998 El Nino year until Hansen shoved those temperatures away down and also raised the 40yr cooling period from its embarrassing decline (ya know the period that had scientists worried about the next ice age that ideologgies have tried to erase from the record). A lot of declines have been clobbered by the climatalarmforce.
    Indeed the warming we see actually rose to near todays temps by 1940, which means that the much steeper warming of the 1850 to 1940 has been stretched out another 70yrs because it wouldnt do to have all the warming of the 19th and 20th Centuries occur befor the rise of CO2.

    • Chartjunk refers to all visual elements in charts and graphs that are not necessary to comprehend the information represented on the graph, or that distract the viewer from this information.

  19. Seriously, anyone who genuinely believes that the ideal temperature for Earth occurred at the tail end of the LIA needs to have their heads examined! Aside from the fact that “ideal” temps are entirely subjective, how many of the so-called climate scientists would really be happy living in LIA conditions? This is just an example of them trying to establish that the Industrial Revolution is responsible for the small about of warming we now are lucky enough to enjoy. Another case of refusing to examine all the data and settling on the one that supports their wretched hypothesis.

  20. First off, why is it these people pick the periods of time when humans are struggling as the basis for the perfect? The 1800s were cold due the little ice age. The period of time they base temperatures from in modern times is the 1970s when we had the impending ice age scare and crops were failing. Cold kills, warmth invigorates. How many species are at the poles? How many in the tropics? How many people pick the cold north for meetings? How many people pick the warm tropics for meetings? There is a much much wider margin for error where it is warm than where it is cold for life to not only survive, but thrive.

    • My thoughts exactly. Showing temp change on a scale of -40 to 120 with color would be nearly imperceptible.

    • Ian
      Why does the vertical axis start at -40F and not zero degrees Kelvin? You are visually exaggerating the temperature variation by cutting off the vertical axis like that.

      • Jane: The reason (IMO) he started the graph at -40° is that at that temperature the Fahrenheit temperature and the Celsius temperature are the same.

      • It is a chart of annual averaged temperatures (which the thermodynamic temperature is itself an average … the geometric mean of a sample’s kinetic energy) shown as a series of alcohol thermometers. -40 is as low as you can go using them. These thermometers were once very common liquid-in-glass models in the USA. That’s also why it is degrees Fahrenheit. By the way, the resolution of a degree Fahrenheit is just a bit under twice that of the Celsius one. If you wanted to use absolute zero, you can, whether in Rankine or Kelvin. That would not change the visual much. You’d just have a longer bar.

      • So what exactly is this image? It’s labelled Temperature Anomaly: May 2018 (with the supposed baseline for the anomaly being the average of May temperatures from 1981 to 2010).
        But today is only May 26, 2018. Which means the Temperature Anomaly for May of 2018 can’t even be calculated for at least five more days. Unless of course somebody at NOAA is just making up temperature data… BUSTED!!

      • Also, the image is labelled 925 mb Temperature Anomaly: May 2018. 925 mb implies it is the temperature anomaly measured at ~2500 feet.
        How many thermometers do we have floating around at the arctic an altitude of 2500 feet?
        Zazove, I find this image to be utterly useless.

      • zazove:
        Nonsense. A receding glacier in Alaska has uncovered a 1000-year-old forest in Alaska, so we know that before then it was warmer than today, and long enough for a forest to grow.
        You may not be setting out to deceive, but you’re setting out to prove that your paradigm, which is built on speculations and assumptions about past climate, is a certain paradigm built on solid science. It is not. It’s based on assumptions and on a never-ending and sloppy misappropriation of causes.

      • All this image confirms is that someone named Zachary Labe (a.k.a. Zazove?) is making up complete BS and trying to pass it off as climate science.

      • Neither does this:
        “By about 7000 years ago the massive glaciers of the last Ice Age had retreated to the mountain peaks of the eastern Canadian Arctic. Tundra vegetation had become established, and was grazed by caribou, musk-oxen, and, in some areas, by bison. The gulfs and channels between the arctic islands had long been at least seasonally ice-free, and provided a home to populations of seals, walrus, and whales. There is considerable evidence that for the next 3500 years the arctic climate was noticeably warmer than today, the tree-line was north of its present position, sea ice was less extensive, and animal populations were large and well established.”

      • So much frothing and gnashing at a bit of NOAA data showing a warm Svalbard. The fact Louis finds it “to be utterly useless” is his problem not the data’s. Here is a bit more utterly useless information that fails to confirm his bias.
        My point is that the graph posted above is deliberately misleading. Does Ian (the poster of it) believe that the LIA and the Maunder Minimum are also just figments or artefacts or fake or disingenuous? Oh no. Lo and behold, they appear in graphs with approriate scales. Or perhaps the scale on Ian’s graph would be a good model for GPs tracking their patient’s body temperature….
        Don132 I have no idea what hand-waving point you are trying to make. Are you saying that we should wait a thousand years to see if the current warming trend will enable the forest to regrow? Post some data instead of just your opinion.
        Dennis, from 1987? Keep up buddy.

    • Melinda,
      The Rainbow Colors have been preempted by a particular sub-class of society. Sorry about that. But then they have also changed the meaning of certain words to make their social practices more acceptable. It isn’t what you say, but how you say it that matters.

  21. If the blue-red scale above represents Earth temperature range then stadial temperatures would be invisible to our eyes in the gamma ray wave range and hot house temperatures would be invisible in the radio wave range. Typically you want to choose a scale that is visible and not leave most of the data without a graphic representation, that is unless your goal is to mislead.

    • The Hockey Stick doesn’t work without massive temperature adjustment fraud by the Hockey Team.
      Tom Wigley email
      to Phil Jones,
      Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
      Cc: Ben Santer :
      “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
      but we are still left with “why the blip”.

    • The Hockey Stick doesn’t work without massive temperature adjustment “fr-waud” (sic) by the Hockey Team.
      Tom Wigley email
      to Phil Jones,
      Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
      Cc: Ben Santer :
      “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
      but we are still left with “why the blip”.

      • For these mass murdering, grand thieving crim!nal fr@udsters, orange should be the new red.

  22. 1.35 degrees C above the coldest period of time in the entire Holocene Epoch? Oh merciful heavens!

  23. Hmm, no scale, years not shown, where is the zero point, is this temperature or trend?, how were the colors chosen?, what is the margin of error, oh wait you can’t show that using this stupid visual… Is this really a bar code for scanning to communicate a secret message? Something like “Help! We don’t understand science and don’t know what we are doing!”?
    Essentially you have an emotional montage of color to reflect how one person “feels”. Only a complete and utter idiot would find this “visual” of any value or use. Or perhaps a 5-year old would find it pretty.

  24. Is it my imagination or has the weather channel transitioned to a more alarmist color scheme for their temperature maps? If green is optimal, we should desire temperatures around 50 F. If temperatures are in the 60s, the color is “caution-tape yellow.” Above that, the color transitions to “traffic-cone orange” and then to “scorched-earth brown.” My wife prefers “scorched-earth brown” for outdoor activities.

  25. For the color impaired this graphic is pointless. In fact it is in black and white also.

  26. The silly coloured picture is designed to hide the truth. Hiding the truth does not change the truth.
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
    As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
    We have know for 20 years that the warming and cooling is cyclic and the cycles correlate with solar changes.

    • Yes, that’s right. They should have started their colour scheme at year 1000 A.D.showing the true (not hockey stick) temperatures.

      • zazove, it is ice core data so there is no data for the last 70 years. Besides, there is nothing to hide, showing the increase over the last 70 years would only strengthen the argument that the temperatures are cyclical.

  27. A graph without a scale is worthless.
    Remember ROY G BIV. Where is the yellow and the green?
    Wave length range for red is 620 -750 nm. For violet, it is 380 – 450 nm. A range between the extremes of 370 nm to display a 1.35º C delta? You’ve got to be kidding!

    • Silly you. What makes you think this is about science? A graph is very valuable as long as you get the grant.

  28. At least Doug represented the Kelvin scale for the y-axis.
    -273K to +12K
    During the time covered by his chart England’s population grew 10-fold, with resultant changes to the built environment & (agricultural) land use changes.

  29. As they say, ‘a picture speaks a thousand words’ they are graphic, easy to understand and colourful . Was it one of mosh’s colleagues that produced some beautiful graphics of arctic ice trends, in the firm of a spiral?
    All the thousand of words many of us write, myself included, could be improved ten fold with really innovative graphics. We still talk about the hockey stick two decades on because, whatever we may think of it, the end result was a very powerful and colourful graphic that put over a strong message in a very simple and easy to understand fashion
    As far as CET goes, my recent article here demonstrated a decline all this century
    However, there is no doubt that CET has risen overall since 1850, not surprising as we recover from the last vestiges of the LIA. so overall it will show up as steadily redder but with a distinct slightly blueish ending.

  30. Funny, he didn’t do a plot of the adjustments to the raw data using the same methodology…

  31. Normally to get to blue from red requires a gradual blending of the two, so that purple is the intermediate colour. As it looks like yellow is cooler than red then this transition is the long way round via green and yellow. Therefore, this graphic demonstrates a lack of understanding of how colours work, but a very good understanding of how propaganda works.

  32. What’s wrong with this graphic?
    Well, I could have drawn it for a start, and I have no artistic inclinations whatsoever!

  33. ” …. the change in global temperatures covering 1.35°C.”
    This is incorrect in at least one sense: what are supposedly being
    depicted are in fact global “MEAN temperatures”, which are quite
    different beasts from “‘temperatures”. For example, assuming no
    ‘spikes’, if Day 1 Celsius range is 10-20, and Day 2 range is 12-19,
    then Day 1 has the higher maximum temperature, and Day 2 the
    higher mean temperature (with 14-18 even more so).

    • I just posted mine, but it’s “Waiting for moderation”.
      I doubt it will ever been seen again.

  34. Alarmists must do something to entertain themselves and reinforce the message after two years and 3 months of temperature anomaly dropping fast, and after a cold and long winter in many places of the Northern Hemisphere. If things don’t change, we will go through the Pause average level in just a year. If that happens there will be a lot of explaining to do, so they are closing ranks in preparation.
    That they so much celebrate such a silly, unoriginal, clearly manipulative display actually talks of desperation.

  35. An excellent example of the relatively new discipline called Neuromarketing. It basically states that most “buying decisions” or persuasion are p done st the subconscious or subliminal level. Color is huge in Neuromarketing, and that is what they are doing. They are so concerned about the psychological effects of their messaging, but it is completely transparent. Has anyone ever considered the ethical dimensions of influencing the public about scientific data using psychological and brainwashing techniques? Even the marketers are not so disingenuous.

  36. I need some labels on the damn thing. Otherwise, it’s just a gradient without meaning. I don’t really know what I’m supposed to be looking at. It’s just a left-to-right gradient from blue to red, taking advantage of the Western progression from left to right as our means of delineating information in a line, and taking advantage of our tendency to view blue as cool and red as hot, therefore ONLY giving a visual impression of moving from cold to hot.
    It’s just a visualization of the lie, and so, in this respect, it is a great visualization … of a lie.

  37. I think this is a very clear, very accurate representation of the data which enables the underlying facts to be grasped readily in a helpful manner. This is the very model of honest scientific communication. If only more climate data was presented so well.

  38. This is the worst form of political pap, it was designed to get an emotional response not a contemplative one requiring thought. It depicts tiny changes in temperature anomalies, ones that are far far less than the typical daily variations as dramatic swings in color. It was intended to deceive, if they were honest the color variations would have been slight shade changes of the same color (all shades of blue, or red it doesn’t matter).

  39. It is useful to read an article from The American Statistician in 1984: How to Display Data Badly The author discusses various “rules” which when followed are pretty much guaranteed to produce ridiculous results. In particular:

    One can compromise accuracy by ignoring visual metaphors (Rule 3), by only paying attention to the order of the numbers and not their magnitude (Rule 4), or by showing data out of context (Rule 5).

    This “graph” lacks any context of time as well as relationship of the colors to the magnitude of the temperatures. They might consider heeding the final rule as well:

    Rule 12 – If It Has Been Done Well m the Past, Think of Another Way to Do It

  40. The entire range of color represents 1.35 deg C increase? Seems like their color transitioning is over dramatized.Give me a break!! Guess the liberals figured presenting the data in this visual format would catch more attention since of their readers could not grasp it any other way.

  41. “The arresting image”?
    striking; eye-catching.
    “at 6 feet 6 inches he was an arresting figure”
    synonyms: striking, eye-catching, impactful, conspicuous, engaging, engrossing, fascinating, impressive, imposing, spectacular, dramatic, breathtaking, dazzling, stunning, awe-inspiring; More
    Hey staff,
    Justy shut up.

  42. If this was a charades crayon coloring clue for the phrase ‘Climate Change’, would anyone ‘get it’?
    Crayon coloring Climate Change charades….. clueless.

  43. I like this quote from Science Alert.
    “The arresting image removes all the scientific accessories, leaving only a color scale to represent an overall change of 1.35 degrees Celsius.”
    What would a curtain look like for any 24 hr period for any place on Earth?
    PS Just what are “scientific accessories”? Data? The scientific method?
    Is actual and honest “science” just an accessory to the CAGW hypothesis?

  44. The colors don’t make much sense. According to Wien’s displacement law, the temperature difference between blackbodies with emissions peaking in the middle of the blue band and those with emissions peaking in the middle of the red band is about 1500 °C, and blue is the hotter of the two.
    I think the color for the 1860s should be blood-red (for obvious reasons, if you’re an American), or perhaps blue and grey. The recent color should be green.

  45. In middle school my mom made me wear a shirt with a pattern that looked just like this. It scarred me for life.

  46. Well, just to assure myself that Earth is not really in any imminent danger, I checked the MODIS satellite shots again yesterday.
    The meltback line for the past winter’s snow fields in Canada has not QUITE reached the thumb of Hudson’s Bay. Plenty of snow still up there, boys and girls. I’m sure the CAGWers, Warmians, and Hot Earthers will be sadly disapoited to find out that the ice is still there.
    I feel for them. I do… sort of. They will have to find another means of scaring us, perhaps at the coffee shop over a tripple whipped soy latte half caff decaff bit of fluff with a tablespoon of soy protein included as part of that meal. And they will find no solution for their angst. They will have to call their day care platoon leaders and mourn the demise of the Great Warming Scam, as it slowly oozes its way into the cesspit below the coffee shop… and they will wonder what that howling is, and where the smell is coming from. It’s just their hormonal shifts from consuming phytoestrogens ad infinitum. They will need time on the quiet chair, facing the corner of the room.
    Meantime, the ski resorts and guides for snowy mountain climbers will be very, very busy people.

  47. What he’s done is to color everything below the average as blue and anything above the average as red. The white is probably the average. Pure propaganda for the no-nothings.

  48. The graph would be better used to describe the poltical shift in working-class American states

  49. Reminds me of the Caribbean Sea colored boiling red hot in the maps of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. Just propaganda techniques.

  50. It is totally inappropriate to present the data that way. They should just plot temperature vs time. It would be more meaningful to show a much longer time span so that one could compare the current Modern Warm Period with what happened with other warm and cool periods during the Holocene.

  51. I may have missed the bus on this one, but the graphic in the lead post looks like the bar code on the toilet bowl brush that I picked up at the dollar store.

  52. The problem appears to be that there are a lot of people who don’t want to see a warming trend go from blue to red. I suggest red to blue or maybe green to orange so they stop crying.

  53. Looks like the color scale demonstrates everyone thought the democrats were going to win the election but at the end the truth came out.

    • 😎
      Some of us are old enough to remember when the MSM, at that time ABC, CBS and NBC, used color on an election map in the US. There was no standard. One of them did use red and blue but the Reds were Democrats and the Blues Republicans.
      Of course, back then, we still had Red China and Hollywood was making movies about the Russian revolution called “Reds”.
      The colors have been switched and standardized now. Mustn’t give the right impression!

  54. Well the scare is over. You can’t get any more red, so it can’t get any hotter!

    • The “scare” has always been in the infrared. You know, the band were nobody can see it without looking through a model.
      (I was going to try to work in “a pair” (of glasses) and a model that looks good but decided to leave it a family friendly comment.8-)

  55. That temperature series goes back to 1750. One hundred years earlier than what is shown. If the entire Central England temperature series was shown it would look very different.

  56. If you did a graphic of a warming of 0.01 degrees over 1000 years,
    you could get exactly the same picture.

  57. I’m not sure the number of stripes and number of years match. …. but then I’m not going to waste my time counting either. But I don’t see 170 stripes on that picture!

    • Pat Frank at 10:14 am made that observation. Beat me to it too.
      Climate Change is about emotional appeal. The environmental Save the Planet lie.
      No science required.

    • Well not Kelvin scale, right? But the higher temperature, the bluer light. There is even such a thing as color temperature.

  58. Now do one for crop yields and life expectancy. Ah,, right, pretty clear where we are heading there too.

  59. The Width of the stripes is not defined in terms of units of time or dates, and the direction of time is assumed to be labeled from 19thC to 21stC from left to right. This assumption is rather poor form for a scientific report and is left to our imaginations. Rather it illustrates how our brains’ narrative creative abilities fill in the missing time labeling based on prior temp graphics and the effect of bias built into our brains through media propaganda and the junior varsity hockey team of MBH to expect the most recent times to be warmer than the past. Color perception is also a product of genetics, gender, ambient light, intact macular retinal cones, culture, language, artistic training, etc. Color is a subjective construct of the brain. Not a universal language to report results that transcends limitations of color blindness, male X chromosome inheritance, cultural linguistic terms,etc.

  60. First of all, this is not a visualization, this is so called global warming art, an extreme left/green humanist activist approach to something that’s mostly in the domain of engineering.
    What is the start year in the graph? That’s not shown. What is the start year of significant CO2 rise in atmosphere? A lot of warming happened before that. Not shown. Red is for both warm and danger, which is an artistic cliche used a lot. This art can’t be kept up-to-date as it has total scale of -1.00 to 1.00, where temps are usually measured in degrees, not as an average of median anomaly per cent.
    But the most insulting feature is the French flag color scheme, that hits right at the sides of my nose because I have partial tritanopia.

  61. No scale or “crossover” point identified, not enough colors used, no mention that the beginning of the series started at the end of the little ice age. When combined with the baseless predictions of temperature, cause-effect, and the doom and gloom ramifications, this is a deliberately misleading cure.
    Of course we know that the alarmists are pushing a “solution” desperately in search of a problem—a global world government and hair shirts for all the people (not politically connected).

  62. I see this piece of art as a representation of the amount of alarmist hype the public square is exposed to over time.

  63. Hansen introduced an “adjustment” in 2000 to change his US temperature chart compared to the 1999 version. The difference between the two was striking and was supposedly due to the “TOD” adjustment. Result was cooling of the 1930’s-40’s and warming of the 1980’s-2000! Deviations of up to 1.5 DegC are quite evident. Point 1) you never change historic data unless a measurement instrumentation change produces different results. Point 2) never denigrate well trained meteorologists and military personnel from the 30’s and 40’s by implying they couldn’t make and record accurate measurements! To do so is suspect at best!
    Stephen Mosher, your task, should you have any integrity at all, is to get those two Hansen charts (’99 & ’00), post them here, and explain why and how the 30’s/40’s miraculously cooled and the 80’s/90’s warmed, thus drastically changing the slope of the curve! I would hold my breath for you post!

      • Scott Koontz,
        Ocean temps should not be conflated with land air temps. The thermodynamic properties of water are quite different from soil, vegetation, and air. Also, the water cools itself through evaporation, and buffers temperature changes in the air above. Thus, water behaves as a smoothed temperature being averaged with unsmoothed surface air temperatures. There is information in both land and ocean temperatures, but the information is corrupted when the two are added together. They should be analyzed separately!
        I think that you are being generous to claim that BEST “proved” that urban and rural rates were increasing at the same rates. The land masses are stationary, but the air masses that move over them are not. Thus, only upwind rural temperatures should have been used for comparison. It is well known that city heat and pollution can have an impact on weather (temperatures!) well downwind from from the cities.

  64. Could we create a similar depiction of the taxpayer money wasted on wind and solar subsidies?

  65. Mostly already covered but two major problems:
    1. No perspective of scale. Dark blue to dark red is what? I know one thiung it’s much less than implied by the color choices.
    2. Spectral choice. The proper way to show something like this is to use a spectrum rather than just two colors varying in shade (and perhaps a distortion in when the colors change) If it’s blue to red, use purples to show the change, even better would be to use the entire red-indigo spectrum and set the extremes to realm temperature extremes (of course then the stripes are all just shades of yellow).

  66. Between blue and red is a whole color spectrum. This image jumps straight from blue to red, a supposed synonym for heat, while forgetting Biv’s middle and last Names. As in Roy G Biv.

  67. Slick trick. I went to this ‘artist’s’ website and actually did something most of his fawning disciples would never do. I actually counted the lines (yes, I have way too much time on my hands).
    For instance he has a colorful faux barcode ‘artwork’ for Central England temperatures from 1772-2017. Since that works out to 246 years and I actually counted 246 colored bars I think I’m on the right path.
    The caption states that the temps go from 7.6C (dark blue) to 10.8C (dark red). And, right off the bat, that’s misleading. Why? Because over 246 years I counted exactly one year, and one year alone, with a temp at 7.6 degrees. The caption communicates a kind of urgency in depicting a 3.2 degree centigrade temp spread. But, in reality that’s not quite the case. Continuing; I count just one year that’s a bit up from 7.6, and possibly four years (I’m starting to go blind doing this) a bit warmer than those two. So, I think we can agree that the practical spread in temperatures isn’t quite as great as it’s (perhaps deliberately?) made out to be.
    What about those sizzling 10.8 degree temperatures? Just like above I counted just one, about 69 years ago: 1948. Of course there were a few more almost as ominous, and demonically red bars after that; about 6 in the last 28 years.
    Needless to say (although I’m saying it anyway) most of the red, redder, and reddest bars cozy up together (except for a single, lonely light blue bar interrupting the show) on the right of that bar code style graph. Ed Hawkins would be defeating his elite advocacy if they didn’t.
    What I’d suggest is to squint down when you look at that graph. It will show you groupings of temperatures in a more pronounced manner. However, for Mr. Hawkins that muddles the plot a little bit.
    There’s other time worn tricks in these barcodes from hell. Why use red for a warm color? A truly hot flame isn’t orange and never red. It’s blue isn’t it? Same with light. Is red used because it projects forward in vision while cool colors, such as blue, bashfully recede? Notice a three dimensional effect to all his graphs and also notice the prominence (due to the light/dark value change) to those dreaded warm years.
    Finally, ask yourself if they actually could measure temperatures to fractions of a degree at a time when the medical profession was still using leeches to bleed sick people back to health.

  68. (yes, I have way too much time on my hands.)

    Glad you had the time.
    PR vs SR.
    Public Relations vs Scientific Research.
    SR dissecting the PR is a good thing…even if it’s not as colorful.

  69. OK, tradition is: blue is cold and red is hot
    What is the traditional color for made up data? For reliable measurement?
    Is there a color expressing “we got robust data by averaging 3 measurements only after we got to throw away 17 outliers or obviously incorrect measurements”?

  70. Oh, boy! Another thing we can pick on! Thanks, Anthony, for telling us we are supposed to dream up reasons to hate it – we might not have known to do so on our own.
    I don’t give a dam about the visual or what’s behind it, it’s the presentation that is sickening. This site is not about learning and discussing and forming one’s own opinion, it’s about spreading hate and distrust and ridicule and division. It’ politics and opinion more than science or fact.

    • No, the picture in question is politics and opinion more than science or fact.
      The scientific fact is that the portion os color spectrum used in representaton should be proportional to the portion of the observed temperature range being represented. Correct representation would result in the almost imperceptible shades of the same color.
      Science is on the side of sceptics, politics and opinion are on your side.

    • Kristi Silber May 27, 2018 at 8:44 pm
      “I don’t give a dam about the visual or what’s behind it, it’s the presentation that is sickening. This site is not about learning and discussing and forming one’s own opinion, it’s about spreading hate and distrust and ridicule and division. It’ politics and opinion more than science or fact.”
      Excellent example of projection, Kristi:
      “I don’t give a dam about the visual or what’s behind it,”
      If you don’t have a problem with that chart pretending to be scientific, then you are on the side of “politics and opinion more than science or fact.”

  71. What is most wrong is that both historical and engineering analysis show there is a cyclic element of around three hundred and fifty years. Any period less than two cycles is misleading and unusable as a source of honest science.

  72. Maybe someone could do one going from dessert color to green to show the global greening over the same period

  73. Now, I have my answer.
    So we are supposed to be 1.35K higher than in 1850. And Hell on Earth is unleashed if we get 0.65K more. Or even 0.15, as the goalpost for thermogeddon seems to be moving from +2 to +1.5.

  74. This picture waste the vertical axis (it could be used to display some information, like, the reliability or the geographic extend of the data; but it doesn’t).
    Or, said otherwise, add a useless dimension just for a fancy color show
    What a metaphor of the CAGW unscientific crap.

  75. The main problem with the chart is that giving a different shade of color to just 0.1 c resolution is meaningless. Why not give a different color to each 0.01 c because it’s also meaningless as well. A temperature change of 0.1 c is not detectable in any circumstances to life on planet Earth and to indicate otherwise is just being plain dishonest.
    When it comes to the emission spectrum of colored light, blue has actually a much hotter temperature than red. This graph actually represents a cooling of over 3000 k in the real world.
    The actual change in temperature rise has also been exaggerated as well being the alarmists goal. Cooling the past or inconvenient previous El Nino’s and warming the present significant contributes to this.

  76. HADCRUT4 has continued with the warming bias, but the peak of the recent strong El Nino does not indicate the trend. It will also be deliberately cooled in future when it becomes part of the past. It still only shows a warming of around 0.5 c since 1979 leading to an overall warming now of 0.9 c. Where does the other 0.45 c come from?
    There has only been a 0.4 c warming from 1850 until 1979.
    Where does the other 0.95 c warming come from since 1979?

Comments are closed.