6 ms·

A plot of an absolute quantity like this should really have a zigzag line at the bottom of the y-axis indicating that it does not start at zero. Or else, it sho

A plot of an absolute quantity like this should really have a zigzag line at the bottom of the y-axis indicating that it does not start at zero. Or else, it should start at zero and / or be logarithmic.

Haemm0r 3y ago
Opened the site, realized the vertical axis configuration, closed the site again. Offsetting zero is an annoying practice.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  To be fair, it's a dynamic zoom / pan plot so a little less eggregious, but still bad.
- laserbeam 3y ago
  I don't think 0 makes sense here. Nor does "50% lower in preindustrial times" makes sense either. The correlation between temperature and co2 exists, but the absolute values involved are not intuitive. "The co2 level is N standard deviations out of the ordinary compared to preindustrial times" feels more useful here, but reading that requires basic statistics (which general audiences probably lacks).
  - MrRolleyes 3y ago
    [dead]
  - timsco 3y ago
    While I see what you're saying, the issue is that when you eyeball the graph, you think, "wow, it's 4x what it used to be".
    - laserbeam 3y ago
      Here's the thing... It might actually be 4x standard deviations higher, if not more. "Almost 2x absolute value" conveys less information here as the absolute minimum co2 value in the entire known history if the earth is non zero. And it is non zero. If I recall correctly it's closer to 80% of the value of recent preindustrial values (one should check this). Would be cool to see that value on the graph, also a median/average/max preindustrial value.
      - ad404b8a372f2b9 3y ago
        It does not convey less information, it conveys accurate information. At the scale of the x-axis, the viewer can see that it was always at 280 so no information is lost. No information is added by breaking the scale, if you want to convey standard deviations, add a secondary axis.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  That's just shallow.
jbaczuk 3y ago
I think the point is that the CO2 levels were relatively stable until recently, so it doesn't need to start at 0.
- jetbooster 3y ago
  It's still misleading. a naive glance would make someone think co2 levels had risen to 800% of original value, when it's only 150% of original (which is obviously still terrifying)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Misleading is omitting the axis label, or cherry-picking a disputably-appropriate range to let you use a misleading window (with or without labels). I don't think it does either?
- IshKebab 3y ago
  I disagree. Clearly the absolute amount of CO2 is more important than the relative change. It would have much more impact and be less misleading if they started at 0. Not starting at 0 both lets people dismiss the graph because they used the stupid not-starting-at-zero trick, and it hides the fact that CO2 concentration has increased by 50% which is insane!
boringg 3y ago
The values below 150 have little value since we have always had CO2 except for maybe when earth was created. Look at the 800k view to get a better perspective. That said I do feel like when people do that it is not a great practice.
- shtack 3y ago
  I think the misleading aspect in this case is that when looking at the 800k view, it seems that CO2 levels have doubled (or more) compared to previous peaks, whereas it's actually a ~30% increase. It's still a very significant increase, and should be shown accurately.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    The inverse of a 33% reduction is not a 33% increase. It is a 50% increase. In other words, humanity has added half of the preindustrial CO2 level on top of the preindustrial CO2 level. What you probably meant is that 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "man-made".
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  When I was a physics undergrad, they drilled it into us to always choose axis limits such that they just perfectly frame all measurement points (with some reasonable padding). This way, you see the most amount of detail. Like you say, having a graph that is mostly whitespace is of little value. Axes must be labeled properly anyway, so there is nothing misleading about it. If people who don't look at the axes are misled, well, that's always going to be the case.
  - cromulent 3y ago
    Totally agree. There is a temperature graph on the same page, and - shock, horror - it doesn't start at 0 Kelvin nor 0 Celsius but it frames the data. For financials or percentages, shifting the baseline from 0 can be misleading. For ppm I think it is a good thing.
    - 3y ago
goodpoint 3y ago
The y-axis range is very clearly visible on the left. Using ranged charts is perfectly normal.
- LastTrain 3y ago
  They are normal where you need precise detail, this is not o of those cases. This just provides fodder for deniers.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    > This just provides fodder for deniers. Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?
    - zen928 3y ago
      Evidence for the statement that being potentially misrepresentative of your output can be misleading to others and lead to an incorrect conclusion, or that misrepresentable conclusions can be used by deniers to field their viewpoints ...? Is there a certain type of evidence that would placate your very specifically worded and anti-intellectually framed question?
      - goodpoint 3y ago
        Evidence that a perfectly normal chart with clearly marked ranges "provides fodder for deniers". I doubt climate deniers are specially aware of chart layout. Most have very little scientific education, unsurprisingly. But go ahead and prove me wrong. > your very specifically worded and anti-intellectually framed question Random insults now. Nice.
GuB-42 3y ago
Came to say that, I hate graphs that don't start at zero. I understand that for line graphs, where you are looking at variations rather than absolutes, this is acceptable, but in this case. - This is an interactive graph, at least give us the option of starting at zero. - CO2 went from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, it is significant enough to see the variations even on an absolute scale. - Don't make the bottom line (x axis) stand out as it does now, especially considering that the y axis doesn't stand out.
- etrautmann 3y ago
  "I hate graphs that don't start at zero." Why? I think there's some intuitive idea that something is being hidden or there's cheating in the presentation, but that doesn't have to be the case if the purpose of the plot is to illustrate relative change (and the y axis is clearly labeled). The counter-argument is that it makes it look like CO2 has 10x'd instead of doubling, but since those values aren't calibrated in units that we can intuitively understand, it's not obviously the correct choice to start at 0.
hokkos 3y ago
The demand that every graph should start at zero is completely absurd, probably from teachers that try to enforce random demands, nobody expect CO2 levels to go to 0 and it is better to use the full space of the screen.

Haemm0r 3y ago

Opened the site, realized the vertical axis configuration, closed the site again. Offsetting zero is an annoying practice.

foobarbecue 3y ago
To be fair, it's a dynamic zoom / pan plot so a little less eggregious, but still bad.
laserbeam 3y ago
I don't think 0 makes sense here. Nor does "50% lower in preindustrial times" makes sense either. The correlation between temperature and co2 exists, but the absolute values involved are not intuitive. "The co2 level is N standard deviations out of the ordinary compared to preindustrial times" feels more useful here, but reading that requires basic statistics (which general audiences probably lacks).
- MrRolleyes 3y ago
  [dead]
- timsco 3y ago
  While I see what you're saying, the issue is that when you eyeball the graph, you think, "wow, it's 4x what it used to be".
  - laserbeam 3y ago
    Here's the thing... It might actually be 4x standard deviations higher, if not more. "Almost 2x absolute value" conveys less information here as the absolute minimum co2 value in the entire known history if the earth is non zero. And it is non zero. If I recall correctly it's closer to 80% of the value of recent preindustrial values (one should check this). Would be cool to see that value on the graph, also a median/average/max preindustrial value.
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 3y ago
      It does not convey less information, it conveys accurate information. At the scale of the x-axis, the viewer can see that it was always at 280 so no information is lost. No information is added by breaking the scale, if you want to convey standard deviations, add a secondary axis.
anigbrowl 3y ago
That's just shallow.

jbaczuk 3y ago

I think the point is that the CO2 levels were relatively stable until recently, so it doesn't need to start at 0.

jetbooster 3y ago
It's still misleading. a naive glance would make someone think co2 levels had risen to 800% of original value, when it's only 150% of original (which is obviously still terrifying)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Misleading is omitting the axis label, or cherry-picking a disputably-appropriate range to let you use a misleading window (with or without labels). I don't think it does either?
IshKebab 3y ago
I disagree. Clearly the absolute amount of CO2 is more important than the relative change. It would have much more impact and be less misleading if they started at 0. Not starting at 0 both lets people dismiss the graph because they used the stupid not-starting-at-zero trick, and it hides the fact that CO2 concentration has increased by 50% which is insane!

boringg 3y ago

The values below 150 have little value since we have always had CO2 except for maybe when earth was created. Look at the 800k view to get a better perspective. That said I do feel like when people do that it is not a great practice.

shtack 3y ago
I think the misleading aspect in this case is that when looking at the 800k view, it seems that CO2 levels have doubled (or more) compared to previous peaks, whereas it's actually a ~30% increase. It's still a very significant increase, and should be shown accurately.
- imtringued 3y ago
  The inverse of a 33% reduction is not a 33% increase. It is a 50% increase. In other words, humanity has added half of the preindustrial CO2 level on top of the preindustrial CO2 level. What you probably meant is that 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "man-made".
mr_mitm 3y ago
When I was a physics undergrad, they drilled it into us to always choose axis limits such that they just perfectly frame all measurement points (with some reasonable padding). This way, you see the most amount of detail. Like you say, having a graph that is mostly whitespace is of little value. Axes must be labeled properly anyway, so there is nothing misleading about it. If people who don't look at the axes are misled, well, that's always going to be the case.
- cromulent 3y ago
  Totally agree. There is a temperature graph on the same page, and - shock, horror - it doesn't start at 0 Kelvin nor 0 Celsius but it frames the data. For financials or percentages, shifting the baseline from 0 can be misleading. For ppm I think it is a good thing.
  - 3y ago

goodpoint 3y ago

The y-axis range is very clearly visible on the left. Using ranged charts is perfectly normal.

LastTrain 3y ago
They are normal where you need precise detail, this is not o of those cases. This just provides fodder for deniers.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  > This just provides fodder for deniers. Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?
  - zen928 3y ago
    Evidence for the statement that being potentially misrepresentative of your output can be misleading to others and lead to an incorrect conclusion, or that misrepresentable conclusions can be used by deniers to field their viewpoints ...? Is there a certain type of evidence that would placate your very specifically worded and anti-intellectually framed question?
    - goodpoint 3y ago
      Evidence that a perfectly normal chart with clearly marked ranges "provides fodder for deniers". I doubt climate deniers are specially aware of chart layout. Most have very little scientific education, unsurprisingly. But go ahead and prove me wrong. > your very specifically worded and anti-intellectually framed question Random insults now. Nice.

GuB-42 3y ago

Came to say that, I hate graphs that don't start at zero. I understand that for line graphs, where you are looking at variations rather than absolutes, this is acceptable, but in this case. - This is an interactive graph, at least give us the option of starting at zero. - CO2 went from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, it is significant enough to see the variations even on an absolute scale. - Don't make the bottom line (x axis) stand out as it does now, especially considering that the y axis doesn't stand out.

etrautmann 3y ago
"I hate graphs that don't start at zero." Why? I think there's some intuitive idea that something is being hidden or there's cheating in the presentation, but that doesn't have to be the case if the purpose of the plot is to illustrate relative change (and the y axis is clearly labeled). The counter-argument is that it makes it look like CO2 has 10x'd instead of doubling, but since those values aren't calibrated in units that we can intuitively understand, it's not obviously the correct choice to start at 0.

hokkos 3y ago

The demand that every graph should start at zero is completely absurd, probably from teachers that try to enforce random demands, nobody expect CO2 levels to go to 0 and it is better to use the full space of the screen.