This global temperature depiction is mendacious in its choice of colors, and many less than informed people have regurgitated it without questioning it at all.
This post is currently for VIP and Premium Subscribers Only.
After 30 days it will be available to all users.
You can bookmark it and read in 30 days or
BYE, BYE Anthony! I am going to CFACT, JoNova!
But we have more than enough CFACT here.
And you have zero fact.
AND we have bnice. What else could you wish for?
What else could we wish for?
An absence of your nonsense.
Aren’t you lucky to have someone to help guide you with your pitiful little life.
To educate you… To help you see the real you, so that you might eventually grow into a functional human being.
Well, have fun. Too bad you wish to put a little bit of money to keep us going ahead of any loyalty or assuming the effort and time we put in is worth nothing. Sheesh. Virtually every newspaper and magazine has gone to a subscription model to stay alive. If we go under because we can’t pay the bills, I’ll send you a nice thank-you note.
The use of dark red colors on temperature maps is of course old. The only time it should be used for otherwise benign temperatures would be in anomaly maps, indicating vastly warmer than average temperatures. One thing that I’ve noticed more frequently these days is the use of words “hottest”, “hotter”, “hotting”, and so on, when in the past the terms “warmer”, “warmest” etc. were usually the norm when speaking about anomalies and trends.
We get ridiculous headlines these days along the lines of “Alaska had its hottest winter ever!”, which is patently stupid. But a scare tactic must be used. A narrative pushed. You must be gaslit…
With the media, hyperbole is an adaptive art.
They are constantly seeking the new hype.
Remember when designer jeans first appeared. It was not soon after that everything had to be “designer.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c147v82gxp2o story tip
This is my last contribution.
Thank you.
The article says that the UK has gotten “8% sunnier” in recent decades. Could that possibly contribute to higher temperatures? No. It must be climate change whatever that is.
The most interesting thing about the BBC article is all the highest-rated comments heap scorn on the climate “crises”
This is very unusual for the BBC climate coverage
Do I detect a sea change?
blue stars are hotter than red stars
Yes but color temperature from light is not the same as poor color choices.
Right- I agree- I see the weather channels here in Wokeachusetts play the same game- scaring people.
Lol if you think that is bad look at this, this is from Sweden’s meteorological&hydrological institute (SMHI) which has a graph for the average daily maximum temperature in july, looks like the whole of sweden is set on fire with a vibrant red for only 20-21c/68f, even 6c is orange coloured.
From a short search 24° seem to be the upper limit to expect – so it makes sense giving it the color for hottest
I’m sure you believe that.
Even the most stupid person alive should realise that colouring 24ºC as bright red is a piece of deceitful propaganda.
The current anomaly -7C (27/07/24 @13:50)
If one is going to use a rainbow color scheme to show the absolute temperature for the Earth, then the proper thing to do is map the total annual range for the globe to the ROYGBIV scale, with something like 10 or 20 deg C range for each color. That would put red at the very highest temperatures, such as near the Death Valley record. To provide more sensitivity to common temperatures, one might consider using unequal ranges such as everything above 40 deg C red, and below -40 deg C violet and green to the range of 10 to 20 deg C. That is, make the width of a color inversely proportional to the probability of the occurrence of the temperatures. Doing that routinely would allow people to estimate temperatures from past experience if NASA ‘forgets’ to include the magic decoder ring with a published map.
Check the scale at http://wxmaps.org/outlooks.php
Red starts at about 22 C
By 30 C getting black – you’re charring
By 38 C going grey – ashing complete
I have to admit I’m a little disappointed that the first new article after signing up is above my pay grade. I understand hard decisions have to be made, but “the majority of WUWT content will remain free as it always has” left me with different expectations.
Just one premium content article in 24 hours but five free ones.
Plus we have thousands of articles that are free to read. You see that as unfair?
I didn’t say unfair. I said I understand hard decisions have to be made, and that it was disappointing that the very first subscribed article was above my pay range.
OK I read your response differently. I guess the gripes on this thread made me touchy. Thank you for the support.
I understand how disappointed you must feel having to make this change. I promise I won’t complain about it because I’ve made a living off of internet sales for a couple of decades now, and this resonates.
That said, I know you understand how ingrained the ad-supported model has become. I forget the original source of this quote, but one of the pioneers of this model said the key to success on the internet is to find out what people are paying for, give it to them for free, then charge advertisers for access to the people.
That worked for a long time. The model was supported by the small percentage of people who clicked on ads and bought stuff. However, over time, that percentage has declined, and now it’s so low that the model works for only a few publications. Plus, you have the additional problem with Google’s Chinese behavioral model.
Like many, you want to move to a model where a small percentage of your readers pay enough directly to support the publication. I see that everywhere now. Some brands are making it work, many aren’t. I think you need a complete redesign to make it work. You have the basics of it in the menus at the top, but I think it needs continual organization.
Finally, I see your frustration this week. I’d advise against that. People are used to not paying for this kind of thing and it’s a difficult transition. I’m not sure what role comments play in all of this. We sure like to comment – especially people like me who don’t have any specific expertise in climate science. This just doesn’t feel like a pay site… yet. But you should make a good living for what you do. Again, I get the frustration, but I can see how people will take it.
Presentations 101. Green is good. Red is bad.
Actually, the interpretation of color can be culturally dependent. I remember attending an interesting talk on that at SIGGRAPH many years ago.
Supposedly measured but obviously mostly simulated….Its difficult to “deceive with color” any worse than the following case, only a day old sciency looking “generated art” video now distributed all over the planet.
My guess…
416 ppm = clear
417 ppm = volcano lava red
Infill 416 to 417 ppm shades based on weather patterns and modelled CO2 dispersion…You can see much of the CO2 coming from vegetated, not industrial areas…but no mention…not science at all…
.
https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-video-carbon-dioxide-co2-emissions-1929622
*Story tip* for someone to debunk based on what actual satellite readings were….
I think that there are two important take aways from the animation. 1) The secret decoder ring to convert the orange colors to PPM CO2 is conspicuously missing; 2) The orange pulsing is a result of nighttime respiration of vegetation, which is consumed by photosynthesis the next day. Only in China are the neon lights on all the time.
I would pay $5 to read this article but don’t really want to go premium at this point (though I certainly owe wuwt for all the free content I’ve read). Without having read this, I think there is way too much red on many tv weather maps. A required color map should be based on 30 year average for current day (green) +/- 1 std dev , (yellow, blue) +/- 2 std dev, (red, purple) +/- 3 std dev. Other color maps are okay but not required.
The required color map could be labeled climate change map and required whenever commentator includes reference to climate change.
Kind of a truth in advertising thing required by the FTC.
Think twice for those of you who have decided to leave WUWT or haven’t subscribed.
WUWT is starved of funding opportunities because of Google’s stranglehold on the internet. Despite claims to the contrary, Anthony doesn’t receive funding from Big Oil to keep this website open, he relies on donations.
Anthony has to keep the lights on – for all of us.