Seems to make sense to me. As hot increases, you see a corresponding increase in time. This has clearly been happening, and most of change climate and warm globaling research proves it.
Technically, it doesn’t matter which of the values goes on the x-axis, and which goes on the y-axis. All analysis can flip the variables, and the result remains the same.
But the message here should be “as time increases, you see an increase in hot”. Time should be on the x axis, hot should be on the y axis.
I thought it would be implied that if you change the axes, then you also change the values accordingly. Typically, the thing you are trying to study goes on the y-axis, and the thing you are using as reference goes on the x-axis. So, if the question was “how does time behave as we change the heat”, then the comic graph is the typical arrangement.
But the question is (or should be) “how does heat change as we move forward in time”.
Again, the graph drawn is technically not wrong. And by flipping the axes, I meant also redrawing the graph to account for the flip. But it bothers me because its against the normal convention of drawing graphs for analysis.
Best practice is to put the independent variable on the x-axis and the dependent variable on the y-axis. That way you can read the graph left to right instead of bottom to top.
But yes this graph is wrong as drawn, unless it’s implying backwards time travel.
Here’s the graph with the axes (and data) flipped to match the time-on-x-axis convention. See the horizontal zig-zagging? Time doesn’t behave that way.
Seems to make sense to me. As hot increases, you see a corresponding increase in time. This has clearly been happening, and most of change climate and warm globaling research proves it.
Technically, it doesn’t matter which of the values goes on the x-axis, and which goes on the y-axis. All analysis can flip the variables, and the result remains the same.
But the message here should be “as time increases, you see an increase in hot”. Time should be on the x axis, hot should be on the y axis.
This graph specifically doesn’t work, see the dips? That implies going backwards in time, and then forwards again
I thought it would be implied that if you change the axes, then you also change the values accordingly. Typically, the thing you are trying to study goes on the y-axis, and the thing you are using as reference goes on the x-axis. So, if the question was “how does time behave as we change the heat”, then the comic graph is the typical arrangement. But the question is (or should be) “how does heat change as we move forward in time”.
Again, the graph drawn is technically not wrong. And by flipping the axes, I meant also redrawing the graph to account for the flip. But it bothers me because its against the normal convention of drawing graphs for analysis.
Best practice is to put the independent variable on the x-axis and the dependent variable on the y-axis. That way you can read the graph left to right instead of bottom to top.
But yes this graph is wrong as drawn, unless it’s implying backwards time travel.
Here’s the graph with the axes (and data) flipped to match the time-on-x-axis convention. See the horizontal zig-zagging? Time doesn’t behave that way.
No, they’re saying that Li switched the axes, but DIDN’T flip the data, making it nonsensical.