2011 Continues To Track 2006 Very Closely

7 Responses to 2011 Continues To Track 2006 Very Closely

1. Peter Ellis says:

   July 9, 2011 at 10:12 pm

   You keep making variants of this graph, and every single time it looks like a shit sandwich. I get that you want to cut out the data from the other years to hide the fact that 2011 is at least as close to (say) 2010. Why don’t you just download the actual data and plot only the two years you’re interested in, rather than pissballing about taking someone else’s graph and changing the colours? Here’s the link to the numerical data: I assume you know how to use Excel (or similar) to plot it.

   http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     July 9, 2011 at 10:51 pm

     reality sucks, eh?

     Reply
     • Peter Ellis says:

       July 9, 2011 at 11:03 pm

       Eh, you have every right to plot whatever graph you like. I will also agree with you that 2011 and 2006 are very close (while pointing out that 2010 is currently closer and has been for several weeks). I just don’t see why you choose to display the graph in such a half-assed, ugly and incompetent style. It really does make you look like a rank amateur.

       Reply
       • stevengoddard says:

         July 9, 2011 at 11:14 pm

         ROFL
     • Robert Austin says:

       July 10, 2011 at 2:38 am

       Peter Ellis,
       Sometimes quick and dirty gets the message across just as well as pretty and professional without wasting gobs of precious time. Most of Steven’s posts are short and sweet climate vignettes with the import left to the reader. Perhaps you should take something to relieve your premenstrual symptoms.

       Reply
     • Scott says:

       July 10, 2011 at 3:13 am

       Robert,

       Getting the data into a spreadsheet (or similar) with a nice plot is a one-time thing that doesn’t take long. After that, it’s a very fast update and doesn’t at all take “gobs of time”. I’d wager it’s just as fast to make updates to that sort of approach as it is to use Steve’s. I know it’d take me about 30 sec to do (with the original setup taking only a few minutes too).

       I couldn’t care less what the plot looks like. Interested people would look at the data themselves anyway. But to think that updating nice-looking plots is time consuming…nope.

       -Scott

       Reply
     • suyts says:

       July 10, 2011 at 3:37 am

       Scott,

       Getting the data to show something significant is the trick. But, you know that already. Why bust someone’s balls because they word things differently?

       Do you think other people don’t do the same as Steve? I believe what he shows is every bit as valid as what others do. It’s horseshit to take him to task when others engage in the same. The hypocrisy ended some time ago. Call bullshit on the people that are doing it on our dime.

       Reply