this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
155 points (97.0% liked)
science
25800 readers
682 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see this sentiment quite often, is it field-specific? Cause in physics and chemistry, starting at 0 is really not required...
In this case, the zero value is really not relevant (since no-one would ever have it anyway). It would just hide the signifcant drift over time. A good scaling here would be based on some clinically relevant interval I guess.
I agree that showing the zero level may be useful here, but... I cannot find a scientific source that shows it differently, so it's not intentionally misleading at least. The bigger issue IMO is that it doesn't show enough historic context (ice core data). The original article has it, or nature.org or co2science.org (though it doesn't show the latest measurements).