^1950-2021.... no
What hits me immediately is a change to a near zero 2nd derivative, and very aligned with the suggestion Rockefeller et-al programs/money really got into swing in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
The other thing which is noticeable (and common) is that the graph creator was too lazy to label the ordinate and abscissa. At least there was a feeble attempt to provide a key.
you only use abscissa if you asked for a particular year. then you draw a line vertically up from that year. to the point on the chart. and then left horizontally to find the number for that year
this graph is about the scale of 1950-2021.. its not a graph of a particular year
i do find it funny how you even bothered to try finding buzzwords to sound like your a graph expert. but reality it shows you dont understand the buzzwords.. you dont even understand what the graph represents. and you did not even bother asking for specific date point you want a abscissa for
What part of "to label" do you not understand? Here's the deal; you put a text label on the different axese telling the reader what the numbers represent. It's really quite easy.
if you cannot tell that there was no dip by looking at a graph.. and instead you want extra numbers plotted along the curve.. then you are not asking for actual relevant stuff. your just trying to be pedantic
Using standard mathematical and scientific tools in an appropriate manner is more than simply 'pedantic'.
It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what a 2nd derivative even is, so it's not at all surprising that you would fail to appreciate the significance of such an artifact approaching zero.