Brigitte Nerlich had a recent article on the Making Science Public blog about how to do things with GIFs. In particular, how they can be used in online science communication. The article also made it into other magazines, such as The Conversation. I thought it was a very interesting article, but maybe that’s because it mentions this blog 🙂 .
Yesterday’s post was an attempt to give Lord Lawson – Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) – a bit of a science lesson. In writing that post, however, I visited the GWPF website and discovered that it is all rather dull and boring. I’ve discovered, however, that Dan Olner has, very kindly, developed an animated version of their logo, which – in addition to being animated – also much more accurately presents the global warming we’ve, so far, experienced. Given the value of such GIFs in communicating science, maybe the GWPF would consider changing from their rather static logo, to this animated version that is not only visually appealing but informative.
Below is the current GWPF logo, and the suggested new logo (thanks Dan) – apologies to those who suffer from motion sickness 🙂 .
credit : The Global Warming Policy Foundation
credit : Dan Olner
[Just in case it’s not clear, this post is – very much – tongue in cheek 🙂 ]
...and Then There's Physics 
It certainly made me smile! I’ll add a link to this to my old Making Science Public version of the GIF post!
The words ‘Global Mean Temperature’ should also change to ‘Global Mean Surface Temperature’ (which, as we all know, represents only 2% of the planet’s temperature rise).
I like it, just please slow it down a little!
Pingback: Making Science Public » How to do things with GIFs: Some musings on online science communication
Maybe it is a feature and not a bug that the gif makes you sick.
Still, I would argue that gif were developed for a time in which a 8×8 pixel animation was lot of data.
🙂 That is a bit fast isn’t it? If you want to swap it out, I’ve halved the speed, may be less vomitous. Also, you’ve got the old website banner – the latest takes it up to HADCRUT4/2014 data.
Thanks, Dan. I’ve changed them but think that maybe Victor’s suggestion (feature not a bug) may have some merit.
Uurch! Sorry. Anyone got a cloth?
Dan, are you sure it is HadCRUT4? The Met Office still reports the HadCRUT3 values, and the values on their logo differ at several points from those you showed. In particular, it is cooler for 2010, which is consistent with it being HadCRUT3. Other discrepancies are also consistent with their having used HadCRUT3. Of course, their units on the x axis are not consistent in length, so the discrepancies may lower the highest values, and raise the lowest values, thereby spuriously reinforcing the impression of little increase entirely be accident.
Tom
I can remember some fuss about GWPF using HadCRUT3 for its logo when it should really have been using HadCRUT4, and IIRC it did change, but given who we are dealing with, this bears re-checking. Was wondering myself, only last night. BTW it’s not just the animation that engenders queasiness – there is more to it than that.
Re GWPF banners – hell – I should read the thread more carefully – sorry Dan.
Tom: they cite “met office 2014” so I presumed it would need to be HADCRUT4 but yes, could be wrong. I did the same comparison with their previous version of the logo and actually asked Benny Pieser what they’d used; here’s the image. It’s an even worse match – there’s actually a discrepancy in polarity of change for some years. At the time I put it down to the fact that the GWPF banner data line is a graphic that’s sqwushed into a small space, so stretching it would cause it not to fit perfectly, or that they’d gone for the look of it rather than the precise data.
That said, I’d better just check I’m using the right source: I’ve used ‘global (NH+SH)/2’ from here, first data column as specified here…?
Sorry – ‘global (NH+SH)/2′ from first table “HadCRUT4 time series: ensemble medians and uncertainties”.
Sorree again! Wish I’d think of these things to put in one comment. here’s a still pic of the superimposed data – it’s actually impossible to get the points to perfectly align on the time axis as well. I got it as close as I could, and I’m pretty sure my code is placing the datapoints evenly…
Perhaps they are using HadCRUT3 after all?
It is a good method, and for a similar display, one of my favorites, watch NOAA on CO2, which they also had on a big screen at last AGU.
I think the gif looks great, Dan.
Doesn’t work on Eli’s fossil xp, but the link does
John, hadn’t watched that NOAA vid in a long while, it’s still amazing. The sudden drop-off as it moves out of the modern era is… not pleasant to watch.
Sou, love the new search feature. Right out the gate I made a cool discovery worth sharing.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/global-warming-policy-foundation.html
Dan Olnar may have been having fun – but it’s still better than the joke GWPF has up on their blog now.
Opps, I started out at HotWhopper, I just noticed I’d moved. Like I said HotWhopper has a grand new search feature.
Did you see this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfmBFJsBaBM&index=2&list=FLyRvARg3GXh_6YG0pznkeGw
Warren,
I hadn’t seen that. Just out of interest, what do you think of the video you’ve posted? I would be quite interested in your view.
I’d be interested, too.
Let’s see if Warren noticed the “trick” – and this time “trick” is to be understood as a smart way of fooling your gullible audience.
Warren,
I hope that wasn’t just a drive-by? Otherwise, it may appear as though you’re promoting a scientifically illiterate video because it mocks some named individuals that you happen not to like.
ATTP, I don’t think this is “scientifically illiterate”, it is more like willful misrepresentation.
Marco,
I was wavering a little between “scientifically illiterate” and “willful misrepresentation”. I opted to give the benefit of the doubt.
Why would an ostensible climate communicator be “just asking questions”?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
I have a feeling that Warren doesn’t seem himself as a climate communicator, but more as some kind of observer of the interplay between climate science and policy/society. I think the distinction between those who are climate scientists, those who are climate communicators, and those who are observing these various processes at work is not all that clear and is something that I would like to understand better.
My son is studying propaganda in history at the moment. I’ll suggest this video as a good contemporaenous example.
Can I add my voice to those intrigued by Warren Pearce’s reasons for posting the link to the video here.
So can we now safely assume Warren did a drive-by?
To be fair, maybe he doesn’t get email notifications of follow-up comments or has been busy with other things?
Given Warren was “just asking questions” it would be discourteous of him not to resurface within 24 hours for the answer.
I think its really really really sad that these guys have been reduced to faking data to push their views. Have can they reconcile that kind of lunacy?
I’d delete the video and put the real data up. Wouldn’t that be denier hated, Marcott 2013?
http://skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html
I can hardly wait to see what he responds with;
ATTP, apparently he had time enough to look up this specific thread and place a link to a video along with a question. Surely, considering that question, he is genuinely interested in a response and would regularly check?
(note, since sarcasm doesn’t work well on the internet, I better point out that the word “genuinely” is meant sarcastically)
I’d like to thank Warren for clarifying his position. I’d been uncertain of him before. That uncertainty is now much diminished.
Someone has posted this video to the blog before. The last time it was a drive-by “Skeptic” and I trashed the comment. I would have trashed Warren’s as well but AndThen was too quick with his response.
I am also surprised, Warren, that you have posted this video. Is this an endorsement by you of the video?