[veltas]

Angular velocity is not velocity, the velocity increases because the angular velocity was remaining constant as the radius increased.

It's encoded in the radius, but the area is visually more impactful - to me anyway - until the end when it's shown from the side, which was good.

The point about comparing up to 1945 is that since the scale is arbitrary I can have it end at the same radius.

[mrow84]

I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant. You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning?

The scale is not arbitrary, it covers the range of anomalies over the chosen period, in units of temperature change in degrees Celsius, and is labelled as such, with the anomaly reference period described in the text. If you were to use absolute values then the scale would similarly cover the range of absolute values over the chosen period - there is no "unbiased" choice of data range, except perhaps that which covers all of the data in question, which this does.

As I noted, the impact of the anomalies is with reference to "normal" temperatures - it is relatively easy for anyone to see that 1 C (/K) is quite a large temperature increase, relative to "normal" temperatures. Surely you can agree that if the largest anomaly shown was 0.01 C then the graph would have far less impact, and if it was 100 C then the graph would have far more impact?

[veltas]

>I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant.

If you make tangential observations the conversation may move tangentially.

>You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning?

It's a visualisation, i.e. the visuals are meant to contain the meaning, and said visuals are important and need to be carefully considered. Areas of 2D shapes tend to represent some kind of quantity, where the area is proportional to the quantity (and if the area was quadratically related to the quantity that would be misleading or inaccurate).

>Surely you can agree that if the largest anomaly shown was 0.01 C then the graph would have far less impact, and if it was 100 C then the graph would have far more impact?

The point is about the meaning of the choice of visualisation and the choice of data and context provided. That's why I compare with 0.01C, because to the layman 2C and 0.01C are both not significant, but the actual environmental impact of the 2C could be very much more significant with more context. You don't need to be very informed to know 100C is significant.

[mrow84]

> If you make tangential observations the conversation may move tangentially.

You (presumably) have agency, and could have chosen to answer the main question rather than labouring your misconstrual of the parenthetical.

> Areas of 2D shapes tend to represent some kind of quantity ...

They sometimes represent some kind of quantity, but here they don't, and despite my repeatedly asking you have been unable to provide any interpretation of what that quantity might mean. Lots of other people seem to be able to understand the graph just fine - perhaps you simply dislike the popularly stated inferences and are looking for holes to pick?