|
Hey folks, This week I have an interesting figure for you from the Financial Times from an e-mail newsletter they distribute each week describing some visualization related to climate change. Before reading further, go ahead and spend a few minutes with the image. What does it say to you? What do you like? What don’t you like about it? How do you think you would go about making it in R? I’d encourage you to write down any of your answers to these questions before reading what I have to say. It would be awesome if you could send me your responses just to get a sense of what other people see (feel free to reply to this email!) What does it say to me? I like the declarative title that “China accounts for almost a third of the current global emissions with a cumulative share of 16%”. What do you like? I’m not a huge fan of stacked area plots, but they did a nice job of focusing on a set of countries/regions of interest. Too often I see people try to include too many categories leading to too many colors, which makes it impossible to know which color belongs to each country. What don’t you like? All that being said, I think the legend could have been better embedded into the panels so that one doesn’t have to scan back and forth. Also, the colors are basically reddish and greenish. I get that EU27, Russia, and UK are all European-ish and could be similar colors. But why are China and US similar colors? In addition to labelling the areas directly, I’d try to pick five distinct colors. How would I make this in R? Good question! I can think of a hack approach and a more elegant approach. The hack would be to create two sets of data that are either scaled by year or over the past 175 years. Then I would use The more elegant approach would be to use Regardless of the approach to making the two panels, each panel has a stacked area plot. We can use Happily, I was able to find the data! If you go to the data hub of the Global Carbon Budget, we can download an To get the data into R, I’d use the This would be my general approach. What did you come up with? Any preference for trying to do this with
|
Hey folks, It has been great to see the high level of engagement with my weekly critique videos on YouTube. I have really enjoyed making them and have learned a lot about current practices in data visualization. The one problem with these videos is that they’re a bit like an autopsy. We can figure out what went well or what didn’t work in a published figure. But we can’t do much to improve the published figure. What if we could do critiques before submitting our papers, preparing a...
Hey folks, This week I want to share with you a figure that resembles many a type of figure that I see in a lot of genomics papers. I’d consider it a data visualization meme - kind of like how you’re “required” to have a stacked bar plot if you’re doing microbiome research or a dynamite plot if you’re publishing in Nature :) This figure was included in the paper, “Impact of intensive control on malaria population genomics under elimination settings in Southeast Asia” that was published...
Hey folks! I hope you enjoyed last week’s series on the radial volcano plot (newsletter, critique video, livestream). I think it did a good job of illustrating the various reasons I think it’s valuable to recreate figures, even if we don’t like how they display the data. Something I didn’t really emphasize in last week’s newsletter was that by recreating a figure, we can make sure that the data are legit. I’m surprised by the number of signals I’ve been finding where authors using tools like...