Junk Charts

Foreground, background

Derek C. points us to this effort by a science journalist to use graphs to help "clarify the concept of climate change".  The graph on the left shows that actual greenhouse gas emissions have exceeded the level predicted by the most pessimistic climate models.  The 3D bar chart on the right examines which countries had most increased emissions since 1990.

While the bar chart contains many of Tufte's "ducks" (not sorted by percent change, 3D, color, gridlines, sufficiency, etc.), it's the left chart that can be made more powerful. 

The casual observer does not need to know which model led to which trajectory of predictions; the graph is vastly simplified, and the message much clearer in the junkart version.  (I only included the CDIAC data because I didn't locate the EIA numbers.)

The general point here is recognizing what is foreground, and what is background.  Aside from gridlines, data labels, axis labels and so on, some of the data usually constitute background material, often as in this case being used to establish comparability.

One message I got out of this chart is that these climate models have done a good job!  (Now, I have no idea if part of the curve included the training period.  It is curious that the predictions were very narrowly contained in the early 1990s.)

Source: The Island of Doubt Blog, June 6, 2007.

Information gain and loss

The previous two posts indicated that CNN, TWC and Intellicast had the best on-line weather forecasting accuracy by looking at the median and mean error in predicting daily low and high temperatures over 41 days.  Is it possible to differentiate between those three?

For that, we need more data so I switched from summary statistics back to the data.  In this new chart, the day by day errors were plotted.  The gridlines labelled errors within 5 degrees, which is an arbitrary guideline for acceptable / unacceptable.  The three scatters looked remarkably similar although CNN appeared to hit the bull's eye (the middle square) with less bias (errors more evenly distributed) but not much better accuracy overall (similar number of unacceptable errors).

Horrid stuff

Small multiples can work wonders when data are replicated, as in this case.  The chart accompanied an Economist article on pollution levels in several European cities, as indicated by the concentration of nitrogen dioxide and particulates.

In the junkart version, I plotted the data series side by side, rather than one over the other.  Further, the order of cities was according to decreasing levels of NO2, which seemed to be the worse pollutant.  All gridlines are removed except the 30 line which worked pretty well to separate out the highly polluted cities.

An odd pattern has now surfaced.  Namely, there is some degree of negative correlation between the concentration of the two pollutants.  Environmental scientists may be able to tell us why.

Reference: "The Big Smoke", Economist, Feb 3 2007.