I find that it's misleading in two ways.
Firstly, the lay person (the audience of this board) is not going to understand that it represents variations from the normal up/down cycle rather than the up/down cycle itself or even base temperature. And how you would have to read that to make any sense is to compare it to the base up/down temp cycle.
Secondly, it appears to show that the last 300 years of "up up up" end within "normal levels," but in fact, the last bit represents a huge spike up with no down cycles to balance it out that conveniently ends when the spike hits the upper limit of the "normal levels." Project a few decades onto that graph and it becomes a different story altogether.
|