There are two different forms of graphs below. One has a more adequate way of presenting the information while the other seems to be very generic and hard to read. I believe graph two has a more adequate way of presenting the information and showing the affects of climate change.
Chart #1
I Believe this graph is a bad representation of climate change because of the lack of labeling. It doesn't really explain the different between the blue, green, and red lines.This graph seems to present the information in a very minimalistic way over a long period of time, making the graph more spread out and harder to read. It also doesn't represent the data far enough in depth for the last one thousand years which is where climate change has mainly came into play. Another reason this graph presents this information in a less efficient way is that it has multiple scaled which can be confusing when your trying to read.
Chart #2
This data presents the information in a much clearer format. As you can see it has easy to read X and Y axises. It also consolidated to a shorter time period which prevent the cluster and confusion thats within graph #1. It accurately represents the increase in temperature due to modern development and the industrial revolution.
Okay Bryson, you make some good points, although the fact that the top graphs represents a larger period of time is not necessarily an indication tha it is not reliable. It is fine for showing the trend over a larger period of time, as long as the x-axis is not manipulated, stretched, etc. Here are a few things I'd like you to look at and edit.
ReplyDelete-Add the sources (URL) of each graph either below them or at the end of the blog post.
-Change "Chart 1" for "Figure 1", and the same for 2
-Take out any "I believe", just make the statement.
-The plural of axis= axes
-On the first graph, you mention how there are no labels on the lines, the word you need in there is "key" or "legend"
-Add a sentence about the reliability of the data itself for each graph. How was the data gathered or were did it come from, who created the graph and how reliable are they/ the organization they represent.
Bryson, you didn't address these comments. Make sure you do in the remaining blog posts so you don't lose points. More importantly, since this is public, you want to make note of recommendations and edits (and act on them) so that each post reflects your best work.
DeleteI'm not sure I understand why the first graph wouldn't be reliable The graphs both seem okay for to me though I can see how the lack of a good key could be potentially an indicator of a bad graph but in this circumstance they appear to be adequately labeled and presented.
ReplyDeleteWhile looking at the first graph, I am not sure why it would be considered unrealiable. I agree that the labeling needs to be improved, however, I still believe that the data in the graph is okay.
ReplyDelete