Comments on: A nice figure http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/a-nice-figure/ "When things speed up hierarchy disappears and global theater sets in." --Marshall McLuhan Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:46:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike (Worcester)http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/a-nice-figure/comment-page-1/#comment-981 Mike (Worcester) Sat, 13 May 2006 04:52:31 +0000 http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/energy-emission-economics/#comment-981 Thanks for explaining about the sequentiality issue. The aggressive color scheme reminds me of that ocean elevation map in one of his books, the one he disapproves of. Thanks for explaining about the sequentiality issue.

The aggressive color scheme reminds me of that ocean elevation map in one of his books, the one he disapproves of.

]]> By: Anthonyhttp://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/a-nice-figure/comment-page-1/#comment-966 Anthony Fri, 12 May 2006 14:28:08 +0000 http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/energy-emission-economics/#comment-966 I assume you were being sarcastic in claiming that chart is Edward Tufte-quality! The chart is incomprehensible without the accompanying text. For those who don't want to bother reading the Greens' PDF, here's an explanation. The emissions reductions (the X axis) are cumulative, with the width of each bar indicating how much of the cumulative reduction it would represent. The cost (the Y axis) is per program, with negative figures indicating cost savings. There are heaps of problems with this chart. Superficially, the colours and use of heavy borders are ugly and make the chart look like confetti. In particular, separating the program labels from the data means that readers have to scan back and forth, working out what each program is. Statistically speaking, the use of cumulative figures is poor form - there's nothing about any of the programs that suggests they have to be implemented sequentially. A substantial problem is that the authors have chosen the wrong sort of graph - it should be a scatter (XY) plot, not a bar graph. That way the cost of each program can be compared relative to its efficacy. I assume you were being sarcastic in claiming that chart is Edward Tufte-quality! The chart is incomprehensible without the accompanying text.

For those who don’t want to bother reading the Greens’ PDF, here’s an explanation. The emissions reductions (the X axis) are cumulative, with the width of each bar indicating how much of the cumulative reduction it would represent. The cost (the Y axis) is per program, with negative figures indicating cost savings.

There are heaps of problems with this chart. Superficially, the colours and use of heavy borders are ugly and make the chart look like confetti. In particular, separating the program labels from the data means that readers have to scan back and forth, working out what each program is. Statistically speaking, the use of cumulative figures is poor form – there’s nothing about any of the programs that suggests they have to be implemented sequentially.

A substantial problem is that the authors have chosen the wrong sort of graph – it should be a scatter (XY) plot, not a bar graph. That way the cost of each program can be compared relative to its efficacy.

]]> By: Adam (Southern California)http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/a-nice-figure/comment-page-1/#comment-681 Adam (Southern California) Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:45:29 +0000 http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/energy-emission-economics/#comment-681 Okay, I've looked at some more of the report now and it should help explain things. But just working off of the chart alone was awfully confusing. Okay, I’ve looked at some more of the report now and it should help explain things. But just working off of the chart alone was awfully confusing.

]]> By: Adam (Southern California)http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/a-nice-figure/comment-page-1/#comment-680 Adam (Southern California) Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:41:21 +0000 http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/energy-emission-economics/#comment-680 I'm actually having trouble understanding the chart. Each energy saver has a colored rectangle associated with it. Am I correct in saying that we are supposed to read the ordinate along the top of the box for positive numbers and the bottom of the box for negative numbers? That much, at least, seems clear. But what about the abscissa? Are we to read along the right side of the box? It's not clear at all whether we're supposed to just look at the right edge of the box and how far away it is from the origin. Are these energy savers all ordered exactly the same from least to most emissions reduction and from lowest to highest cost? Or are the savings cumulative with the different sources, and the widths of the boxes the marginal reduction for that source? So I really don't know what this chart is supposed to tell me. Does it say that nuclear would reduce the most emissions, but would also be the most expensive? Maybe some text to go with the chart would be helpful. I'm sorry, but colors alone do not make the Tufte. I’m actually having trouble understanding the chart. Each energy saver has a colored rectangle associated with it. Am I correct in saying that we are supposed to read the ordinate along the top of the box for positive numbers and the bottom of the box for negative numbers? That much, at least, seems clear. But what about the abscissa? Are we to read along the right side of the box? It’s not clear at all whether we’re supposed to just look at the right edge of the box and how far away it is from the origin. Are these energy savers all ordered exactly the same from least to most emissions reduction and from lowest to highest cost? Or are the savings cumulative with the different sources, and the widths of the boxes the marginal reduction for that source?

So I really don’t know what this chart is supposed to tell me. Does it say that nuclear would reduce the most emissions, but would also be the most expensive? Maybe some text to go with the chart would be helpful.

I’m sorry, but colors alone do not make the Tufte.

]]> By: Mike (Worcester)http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/a-nice-figure/comment-page-1/#comment-679 Mike (Worcester) Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:33:48 +0000 http://www.PieAndCoffee.org/2006/04/26/energy-emission-economics/#comment-679 Speaking of Tufte, I just discovered the great blog <a href="http://junkcharts.typepad.com/" rel="nofollow">Junk Charts</a>, which takes its name from Tufte's coinage "chartjunk." Speaking of Tufte, I just discovered the great blog Junk Charts, which takes its name from Tufte’s coinage “chartjunk.”

]]>