←back to thread

Climate Change Tracker

(climatechangetracker.org)
447 points Brajeshwar | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.773s | source
Show context
jiofj[dead post] ◴[] No.37372373[source]
[flagged]
1. arthur2e5 ◴[] No.37372562[source]
Graphs of what? CO2 concentration when the initial was never 0, except for when Earth had no atmosphere? Average temperature when a 0 would be an ice age? The "change" graphs start from 0, and that's what matters.
replies(1): >>37376959 #
2. Izkata ◴[] No.37376959[source]
A truncated Y-axis exaggerates the relative change, it's the simplest and most common method of being misleading with data.

https://www.heap.io/blog/how-to-lie-with-data-visualization

replies(1): >>37380167 #
3. ronald21 ◴[] No.37380167[source]
The use of a truncated Y-axis in charts is a topic of ongoing debate among data visualization experts. The appropriateness of truncating the Y-axis depends on the specific context and intent of the visualization.

There are cases where small differences are critically important, and the larger context might obscure these differences. In these scenarios, truncating the Y-axis can be helpful for emphasizing the variations in the data that matter. For instance, if you're tracking minute changes in a vital medical reading, it's essential to be able to see those fluctuations clearly.

Scientifically speaking, the representation of data should always prioritize clarity and accuracy. It's neither universally right nor wrong to truncate the Y-axis. Instead, the decision should be based on the specific use case, the intended audience, and the importance of the message the data is meant to convey.

The best practice is to always be transparent about how data is visualized. If a Y-axis is truncated, it should be evident to viewers, and the reasons for doing so should be justifiable based on the data's context and importance.