A nice plot of densities, but what's behind the colors?

I came across this chart by Planet Anomaly that compares air quality across the world's cities (link). The chart is in long form. The top part looks like this:

The bottom part looks like this:

You can go to the Visual Capitalist website to see the entire chart.

***

Plots of densities are relatively rare. The metric for air quality is micrograms of fine particulate matter (PM) per cubic meter, so showing densities is natural.

It's pretty clear the cities with the worst air quality at the bottom has a lot more PM in the air than the cleanest cities shown at the top.

This density chart plays looser with the data than our canonical chart types. The perceived densities of dots inside the squares do not represent the actual concentrations of PM. It's certainly not true that in New Delhi, the air is packed tightly with PM.

Further, a random number generator is required to scatter the red dots inside the circle. Thus, different software or designers will make the same chart look a bit different - the densities will be the same but the locations of the dots will not be.

I don't have a problem with this. Do you?

***

Another notable feature of this chart is the double encoding. The same metric is not just presented as densities; it is also encoded in a color scale.

I don't think this adds much.

Both color and density are hard for humans to perceive precisely so adding color does not convey  precision to readers.

The color scale is gradated, so it effectively divided the cities into seven groups. But I don't attach particular significance to the classification. If that is important, it would be clearer to put boxes around the groups of plots. So I don't think the color scale convey clustering to readers effectively.

There is one important grouping which is defined by WHO's safe limit of 5 pg/cubic meter. A few cities pass this test while almost every other place fails. But the design pays no attention to this test, as it uses the same hue on both sides, and even the same tint changes on either side of the limit.

***

Another notable project that shows densities as red dots is this emotional chart by Mona Chalabi about measles, which I wrote about in 2019.

 

The art of making simple things harder

It's no longer a shock when a TV network such as MSNBC plays loose with the scaling of the column heights, as in this recent example:

Hat tip to Mark P. for forwarding the image, and Rachel for the original tweet.

***

What's shocking is that the designer appears to believe that the column heights of a column chart can be determined without reference to the data.

There is not a single relationship that has been retained on this chart. The designer just picks whatever size column is desired.

One obvious distortion is between the Biden and Trump columns. Trump's number is about 1/3 of Biden's (120 vs 40), and yet the red column's height is 70% of the blue's.

Furthermore, amongst the red columns, the heights are also haphazard. Trump's number is almost 3 times larger than Haley's; the ratio of column heights is almost 4 times. Haley's number is just a tad higher than DeSantis and yet Haley's column is twice the height of DeSantis.

***

There is a further, subtle distortion of the column's widths. By curving the chart canvas, certain columns are widened more than others. The diagram above retains the distorted widths and you can see that the Desantis column is wider than that of Haley's.

Here is what the undistorted column chart looks like:

It's easy to make such a chart in Excel or any charting software, so it's mystery why this type of distortion happens. Did the designer open up an empty canvas and start putting up columns of any size?

The cult of raw unadjusted data

Long-time reader Aleks came across the following chart on Facebook:

The author attached a message: "Let's look at raw, unadjusted temperature data from remote US thermometers. What story do they tell?"

I suppose this post came from a climate change skeptic, and the story we're expected to take away from the chart is that there is nothing to see here.

***

What are we looking at, really?

"Nothing to see" probably refers to the patch of blue squares that cover the entire plot area, as time runs left to right from the 1910s to the present.

But we can't really see what's going on in the middle of the patch. So, "nothing to see" is effectively only about the top-to-bottom range of roughly 29.8 to 82.0. What does that range signify?

The blue patch is subdivided into vertical lines consisting of blue squares. Each line is a year's worth of temperature measurements. Each square is the average temperature on a specific day. The vertical range is the difference between the maximum and minimum daily temperatures in a given year. These are extreme values that say almost nothing about the temperatures in the other ~363 days of the year.

We know quite a bit more about the density of squares along each vertical line. They are broken up roughly by seasons. Those values near the top came from summers while the values near the bottom came from winters. The density is the highest near the middle, where the overplotting is so severe that we can barely see anything.

Within each vertical line, the data are not ordered chronologically. This is a very key observation. From left to right, the data are ordered from earliest to latest but not from top to bottom! Therefore, it is impossible for the human eye to trace the entire trajectory of the daily temperature readings from this chart. At best, you can trace the yearly average temperature – but only extremely roughly by eyeballing where the annual averages are inside the blue patch.

Indeed, there is "nothing to see" on this chart because its design has pulverized the data.

***

In Numbersense (link), I wrote "not adjusting the raw data is to knowingly publish bad information. It is analogous to a restaurant's chef knowingly sending out spoilt fish."

It's a fallacy to think that "raw unadjusted" data are the best kind of data. It's actually the opposite. Adjustments are designed to correct biases or other problems in the data. Of course, adjustments can be subverted to introduce biases in the data as well. It is subversive to presume that all adjustments are of the subversive kind.

What kinds of adjustments are of interest in this temperature dataset?

Foremost is the seasonal adjustment. See my old post here. If we want to learn whether temperatures have risen over these decades, we can't do so without separating out the seasons.

The whole dataset can be simplified by drawing the smoothed annual average temperature grouped by season of the year, and when that is done, the trend of rising temperatures is obvious.

***

The following chart by the EPA roughly implements the above:

The original can be found here. They made one adjustment which isn't the one I expected.

Note the vertical scale is titled "temperature anomaly". So, they are not plotting the actual recorded average temperatures, but the "anomalies", i.e. the difference between the recorded temperatures and some kind of "expected" temperature. This is a type of data adjustment as well. The purpose is to focus attention on the relative rather than absolute values. Think of this formula: recorded value = expected value + anomaly. The chart shows how many degrees above or below expectation, rather than how many degrees.

For a chart like this, there should be a required footnote that defines what "anomaly" is. Specifically, the reader should know about the model behind the "expectation". Typically, it's a kind of long-term average value.

For me, this adjustment is not necessary. Without the adjustment, the four panels can be combined into one panel with four lines. That's because the data nicely fit into four levels based on seasons.

The further adjustment I'd have liked to see is "smoothing". Each line above has a "smooth" trend, as well as some variability around this trend. The latter is not a big part of the story.

***

It's weird to push back on climate change advocacy by attacking data adjustments. The more productive direction, in my view, is to ask whether the observed trend is caused by human activities or part of some long-term up-and-down cycle. That is a very challenging question to answer.

Messing with expectations

A co-worker sent me to the following map, found in Forbes:

It shows the amount of state tax surcharge per gallon of gas in the U.S. And it's got one of the most common issues found in choropleth maps - the color scheme runs opposite to reader expectations.

Typically, if we see a red-green color scale, we would expect red to represent large numbers and green, small numbers. This map reverses the typical setup: California, the state with the heftiest gas tax, is shown green.

I know, I know - if we apply the typical color scheme, California would bleed red, and it's a blue state, damn it.

The solution is to avoid the red color. Just don't use red or blue.

There is no need to use two colors either.

***

A few minor fixes. Given that all dollar amounts on the map are shown to two decimal places, the legend labels should also be shown to 2 decimal places, and with dollar signs.

The subtitle should read "Dollars per gallon" instead of "Cents per gallon". Alternatively, keep "Cents per gallon" but convert all data labels into cents.

Some of the states are missing data labels.

***

I recast this as a small-multiples by categorizing states into four subgroups.

With this change, one can almost justify using maps because there is sort of a spatial pattern.