Though the temperatures might not always feel it, at least in Philadelphia, summer is ending and autumn beginning. Consequently I wanted to share this neat little work that explores urban heat islands. Specifically, this post’s author looks at Massachusetts and starts with a screenshot of the Boston area.
The author points out that the Boston Common and Public Garden are two areas of cool in an otherwise hot Boston. He also points out the Charles River and the divide between Boston and Brookline. I would like to add to it and point out the Fens and the Emerald Necklace.
I wonder if a scale of sorts would help, though the shift from warm yellows and reds to cooler greens and blues certainly helps differentiate between the cooler and warmer areas.
I mean come on, guys, did you really expect me to not touch this one?
Well we made it to Friday, and naturally in the not so serious we have to cover the sharpie map. Because, if the data does not agree with your opinions, clearly the correct response is to just make shit up.
By now you have probably all heard the story about how President Trump tweeted an incorrect forecast about the path of Hurricane Dorian, warning how Alabama could be “hit (much) harder than anticipated”. Except that the forecast at the time was that Alabama wasn’t going to be hit. Cue this map, days later. As in days. As in this news story continued for days.
So to be fair, I went to the NOAA website and pulled down from their archive the cone maps from the date of the graphic Trump edited, and the one from the day when he tweeted about Alabama being hit by the hurricane.
Important to note that this forecast dates from 29 August. This press conference was on 4 September. He tweeted on 1 September. So in other words, two days after he used the wrong forecast, he had printed a big version of a contemporaneously two-day old forecast to show that if he drew a sharpie line on it, it would be correct.
Here is the original, from the National Hurricane Centre, for 29 August. Note, no Alabama.
And then Trump tweeted on 1 September. So let’s take the 02.00 Eastern time 1 September forecast from NOAA.
Definitely no Alabama in that forecast.
This could have all gone away if he had just admitted he looked at the wrong forecast and tweeted an incorrect warning. Instead, we had the White House pressuring NOAA to “fix” their tweet.
Now we can all chalk this up as funny. But it does have some serious consequences. Instead of people in the actual path of Dorian preparing, because of the falsely wide range of impacts the president suggested, people in Alabama needlessly prepared for a nonevent.
But more widely, as someone who works with data on a daily basis, we need to agree that data is real. We cannot simply change the data because it does not fit the story we want to tell. If I could take a screenshot of every forecast and string them together in an animated clip, you would see there was never any forecast like the sharpie forecast. We cannot simply create our own realities and choose to live within them, because that means we have no common basis on which to disagree policy decisions that will have real world impacts.
Credit for the photo goes to Evan Vucci of the AP.
Credit for the National Hurricane Centre maps goes to its graphic team.
Yesterday President Trump announced that the FDA is seeking to implement a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes. Ostensibly this is to combat teen uptake on the habit, but it comes at the same time as an outbreak of respiratory illnesses seemingly linked to vaping. Though, it should be pointed out that preliminary data points to a link to cannabis-infused vaping liquids, not necessarily cigarettes.
Regardless, the day before yesterday, I want to the CDC website to get the data on the outbreak to see if there was a geographic pattern to the outbreak. And, no, not really.
The closest thing that I could argue is the Eastern Seaboard south of New England. But then the deaths are all from the Midwest and westward. So no, in this graphic, there really is no story. I guess you could also say it’s more widespread than not?
Five years ago, I covered the Russian invasion of Ukraine a littletinybit. Five years on and Russia has formally annexed Crimea and Russian “patriotic volunteers” continue to destabilise the Donbass. About two weeks ago, this article from the BBC caught my eye as it recounted the story of Ukraine’s deadliest day in the conflict. Initially I read it simply because I have long been fascinated by that undeclared war.
Since at least high school, but probably most definitely earlier, I have long been interested in military history. And I distinctly recall being awestruck by maps depicting the bombing of Pearl Harbour, or the Roman defeat at Cannae, or the Battle of Waterloo.
So I loved scrolling through the article and finding this graphic.
It’s a fairly simple map, showing the alignment of forces. It’s not quite a tactical map showing unit size/formations, but it does show the Ukrainian forces essentially surrounded. And how their retreat brought them through essentially a shooting gallery of Russian artillery.
Credit for the piece goes to the BBC graphics department.
Dorian now speeds away from Newfoundland and into the North Atlantic. We looked at its historic intensity last week. But during that week, with all the talk of maps and Alabama, I noted to myself a map from the BBC that showed the forecast path.
But note the state borders. New Jersey and Delaware have merged. Is it Delawarsey? And what about Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia? Compare that to this map from the Guardian.
What we have are intact states. But, and it might be difficult to see at this scale, the problem may be that it appears the BBC map is using sea borders. I wonder if the Delaware Bay, which isn’t a land border, is a reason for the lack of a boundary between the two states. Similarly, is the Potomac River and its estuary the reason for a lack of a border between Virginia, Maryland, and DC?
I appreciate that land shape boundary files are easy, but they sometimes can mislead users as to actual land borders.
Credit for these pieces go the BBC graphics department and the Guardian graphics department.
There is a lot going on in the world—here’s looking at you Brexit vote today—but I did not want to miss this frightening article from the BBC on the melting of Greenland’s ice. It’s happening. And it’s happening faster than thought.
There are several insightful graphics, including the standard photo slider of before and after, a line chart showing the forecast rise of sea levels within the possible range. But this one caught my eye.
The colour palette here works fairly well. The darkest reds are not matched by a dark blue, but that is because the ice gain does not match the ice loss. Usually we might see a dark blue just to pair with a dark red, but again, we don’t because the designers recognised that, as another chart shows, the ice loss is outweighing the gains, though there are some to be found most notably at the centre of the ice sheets. This is a small detail, but something that struck me as impressive.
My only nitpick is that the legend does not quantify the amounts of gain or loss. That could show the extremes and reinforce the point that the loss is dwarfing the gain.
Credit for the piece goes to the BBC graphics department.
The G7 conference in France wrapped up yesterday and they announced an aid package for Brazil. Why? Because satellite data from both Brazil and the United States points to a rash of fires devastating the Amazon rainforest, the world’s largest carbon sink, or sometimes known as the lungs of the Earth. I have not had time to check this statistic, but I read that 1/5 the world’s oxygen comes from the Amazon ecosystem. I imagine it is a large percentage given the area and the number of trees, but 20% seems high.
Regardless, it is on fire. Some is certainly caused by drier conditions and lightning strikes. But most is manmade. And so after the Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro said his country did not have the resources to fight the fires, the G7 offered aid.
This morning, Bolsonaro refused it.
And so we have this map from InfoAmazonia that takes NASA data on observed fires for all of South America. I cropped my screencapture to Brazil.
A key feature to note here, in addition to that black background approach, is that you will see three distinct features: yellow hotspots fading to cold black areas, yellow dots with red outlines, and red dots. Each means something different. The yellow to red to black gradient simply means frequency of fires, the yellow dots with red outlines represent significantly hot fires from 2002 through 2014. The red dots are what concern us. Those are fires within the last month.
Sure enough, we see lots of fires breaking out across the Amazon. And Bolsonaro not only rejected the aid, but a few weeks ago he rejected similar data. He fired the head of a government agency tasked with tracking the deforestation of the Amazon after he released the agency’s monthly report detailing the deforestation. It had risen by 39%.
From a design standpoint, it is a solid piece. I do wonder, however, if some kind of toggle for the three datasets could have been added. Given the focus on the new fires breaking out, isolating those compared to the historic fires would be useful.
But before wrapping up, I also want to point out that there are a significant number of red dots appearing outside Brazil. The Amazon exists beyond borders, and there are a significant number of fires in neighbouring Bolivia and Paraguay. Let alone around the world…
If you haven’t heard, President Trump wants to buy Greenland from Denmark. So is Greenland going to beat Puerto Rico to joining the Union as the 51st state?
Not even close.
It would be the smallest state in terms of population, but also one of the smallest US territories. But in terms of area, Greenland dwarfs every state but Alaska. Though it still beats Alaska by almost 50% of its land area.
I had hoped to include some more economic data, but that will have to wait for a different post. Acquiring the population data was actually the most difficult—the US Census Bureau does not actually have easy to access data on the populations of US territories not called Puerto Rico.
Moving away from climate change now, we turn to the lovely land of Afghanistan. While the Trump administration continues to negotiate with the Taliban in hopes of ending the war, the war continues to go worse for Afghanistan, its government, and its allies, including the United States.
It is true that US and NATO ally deaths are down since the withdraw of combat troops in 2014. But, violence and sheer deaths are significantly up. And as this article from the Economist points out, the deaths in Afghanistan are now worse than they are in Syria.
The beginning of the article uses a timeline to chart the history of Afghan conflicts as well as the GDP and number of deaths. And it is a fascinating chart in its own right. But I wanted to share this, a small multiples featuring graphic looking at the geographic spread of deaths throughout the country.
It does a nice job by chunking Afghanistan into discrete areas shaped as hexagons and bins deaths into those areas. All the while, the shape remains roughly that of Afghanistan with the Hindu Kush mountain range in particular overlaid. (Though, I am not sure why it is made darker in the 2003–04 map.)
To highlight particular cities or areas, hexagons are outlined to draw attention to the population centres of interest. But overall, the rise in violence and deaths is clear and unmistakable. And it has spread from what was once pockets in the south to the whole of the country that isn’t mountains or deserts.
Tamerlane would be proud.
Credit for the piece goes to the Economist graphics department.
Yesterday we looked at a nice piece from the BBC showing how big cities across the world will warm from the impact of climate change. It did a really nice job of showcasing the numbers. But it was admittedly number heavy. (And for the Americans in my audience, you probably were left out in the…cold…because the rest of the world uses Celsius to talk temperature.)
But this piece from the University of Maryland is something I have been raving about for weeks now. Generally speaking, people are able to better internalise data and information when they can compare it to something tangible or familiar. And degrees of Celsius, whilst accurate, fail to do that. So this piece takes their 2080 forecast and compares it to today, but in terms of place.
The above map is for Philadelphia. It shows how by 2080, according to a current emissions model, the city’s climate will best resemble that of Memphis, Tennessee and the lower Mississippi River Valley. Or, similar to the tidal regions of North Carolina. Having been to Memphis in the summer once, none of those are pleasant comparisons.
And for those of you in Chicago, it does not get a whole lot better.
So while these might not be as bad, it still is a swath of the plains and the lower Ohio River Valley. And…yes, a little like today’s climate here in Philadelphia.
From a design standpoint, I probably would have used a light or greyed out map. The colours used to represent the topography are too similar to those used to define the similarity. And that can make it tricky to read.
But the true strength of this piece is the designers’ ability to link tomorrow’s climate to today’s by use of space. And as I said at the beginning, I have been talking about this piece offline for weeks. And I likely will for weeks to come.
Credit for the piece goes to Matthew C. Fitzpatrick and Robert R. Dunn .