Skip to main content
Skeptics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 3
    I have to say that I recognize the good reasons for researchers using a suppressed zero in the upper figure, but this topic is so politicized that it bothers me to see it in a more public context. That curve represents a (quite significant) 25% change, not the factor of several ballooning which an unwary or unsophisticated reader could take away from it. Hmmm ... both figures, actually. Commented Mar 3, 2014 at 19:17
  • @dmckee since nobody is claiming that CO2 levels are "balooning", I can't see why an unwary or unsophisticated reader would take that away from the figures. A graph that started the CO2 axis at zero would be misleading as an atmospheric CO2 concentration anywhere near zero would be physically impossible on a planet with abundant carbon-based life (just as it would be misleading to show surface temperatures with a temperature axis starting at zero Kelvin). It would also reduce the resolution available to show any spikes due to volcanic eruptions... Commented Mar 4, 2014 at 12:51
  • ...which would inevitably lead to the objection that the graph had been manipulated to bias it against volcanic origin argument by not scaling the graph to the variation in the data! If there is a good scientific reason to display a graph in a particular way, that is the way it should be done, and if "unwary or unsophisticated readers" have concerns then be willing to address them. Commented Mar 4, 2014 at 12:55