|
I'm not sure where all the aggression and distrust comes from, but if you had done a a simple search, you would easily see that your points are false. 1) a) Every single line shown are thin lines except for the 6 lowest average-ice years, which is clearly marked in the legend (2006-7, 11-12, 16-17). That makes for 34 thin lines and 6 thick lines.
b) Also, why would that visual distinction be misleading again? All it would emphasize are when the low-ice time periods are - in the recent decades. It's not like there was a low-ice period in 1979 or something that the author intentionally made thin. 2) It is not visually possible to pick 40 colors that are distinct enough in color space that you can consistently tell at a glance (i.e. when you look away and only compare the next color from memory). Go ahead and try it. Visual perception researchers have tried (http://vis.stanford.edu/color-names/) and the best you're going to get is maybe 12 (http://colorbrewer2.org/) 3) This is so wrong, it's not even wrong:
a) the data only existed starting in 1978, because the Nimbus 7 launched in 1978, so this is the whole available data (http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Global_seaice/).
b) Global sea ice isn't in perfect lockstep with temperature, but larger temperature trends and currents and other factors, so talking about a handful of warmer or colder years doesn't even make sense.
c) Even if it were, I still don't know what you're talking about. See the NASA land-ocean temperature index (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/). You could have started in 1977, or 76, or 75... you'd have to go all the way back to 1945 to find a warmer year, and that would be missing the whole point of the overwhelming trend. I'd be very careful to make sure that I'm not the one doing the public a disservice when I openly accuse people of manipulating data. I wish everyone showed a similar courtesy. |