This scientist just changed how we think about climate change with one GIF
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/11/this-scientist-just-changed-how-we-think-about-climate-change-with-one-gif/The image has resonated for a number of reasons — one of them being, as Hawkins says, that it “doesn’t require any complex interpretation.” It uses data that was always there, of course — data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center which document the globe’s average temperature anomaly monthly and annually going back to the year 1850. (Two U.S. agencies, NASA and NOAA, do the same but only go back to 1880).
Hawkins took these monthly temperature data and plotted them in the form of a spiral, so that for each year, there are twelve points, one for each month, around the center of a circle – with warmer temperatures farther outward and colder temperatures nearer inward. At the same time, he took the pre-industrial baseline temperature to be the average temperature from 1850 to 1900, and put out markers for where a 1.5 degree Celsius rise above that temperature would be, and where at 2 degree Celsius rise would be, in the form of larger, red concentric circles.
And then, of course, he made the whole thing animated and tweetable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
For example, take an x-y axis graph consisting of a single line (linear rate of change), say 45 degrees for ease of demonstration.
Let the y axis ("temperature"
become the radial axis at a 10:1 ratio (a linear ratio). It doesn't matter what ratio you choose, the effect is the same, but 10:1 is convenient for demonstration. Let the first 'y' start at 100, so the radial axis starts at 10.
Let the x axis ("years" become 10 steps around the circle = +10 in x. Again, the number of steps does not change the effect, but 10 is convenient for demonstration.
So, in the first 10 years, the x-y graph goes x from 0 to 10 and the y from 100 to 110. On the radial graph, the first wind around (x from 0 to 10) goes radially from 10 to 11. That fits outside a circle of radius 10 and inside a circle of radius 11. That is an area (pi-r-squared) of (3.14 x 11 x 11) - (3.14 x 10 x 10) = 380 - 314 = 66.
In the last 100 years, the x-y graph goes from 90 to 100 and the y from 190 to 200 (maintaining the linear rate of change). On the radial graph, the last wind goes radially from 19 to 20. That fits outside a circle of radius 19 and inside a circle of radius 20. That is an area of (3.14 x 20 x 20) - (3.14 x 19 x 19) = 1257 - 1134 = 123.
123 is not 66.
On the x-y graph, a linear rate of change has been converted to a varying rate of change, a rate of change that varies depending on how far you are from the center. That biases the radial graph to making later change seem much bigger than earlier change. Perceptually.
Similarly, as you point out, the step lines on the radial graph get longer as you get farther out, even though on the x-y graph each step is identical to every other step in our demonstration. The first step 0 to 1 in x is a line one tenth of circumference (2-pi-r) of about length (6.28 x 10) / 10 = 6.28. The last step 99 to 100 in x is a line one tenth of a larger circumference on the radial graph of about length (6.28 x 99) / 10 = 62.2. This is much longer and compounds the perceptual bias.
So the radial graph is a good example of how to lie with statistics and graphs.
This is increments of equal radius:
This is increments of equal area:
Me, I'd say the graph with equal radius increments is the one that looks 'steady'.
Ughh... 
There will be many generations of species after we are gone. It's a little audacious to think that God cares what happens to us more than the millions of species that we've helped meet extinction. 
That makes everything okay...doesn't it??
for us to use up. Jesus will fix the climate when he returns. 
