This graph is total nonsense without further explanation or better legends. It might make sense to its creator, but it is hard to imagine anyone else getting any benefit whatsoever from it.

1. It talks about "monthly averages" in the caption, but there's nothing about months in the graph.

• • The x-axis is time, in years, which implicitly includes months as a sub-period.

1. It looks funny, like it is a series of blue ovals inside black ovals. Spread out more in the horizontal direction, it might be comprehensible.

• • Its effectively two sine waves, 6 months out of phase

1. Nothing identifies what is northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.

• • Its a very minor intelligence/comprehension test. Especially after the most recent edit, its very easy to work it out (or at least I thought it was; tell me if I'm wrong). But you could add the colours in the figure caption, if you like.

1. The scientific notation legend is will put non-technical people off. Just use square megameters, with numbers 5, 10, 15, and 20. Or even millions of square kilometers, with the same numbers.

• • Well, sorry. If I ever re-drawn it I will. But it doesn't seem worth re-drawing it just for this.

1. Just what in the world are you trying to show with it? Maybe explaining that will make it make sense. Gene Nygaard 21:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Lots of obvious things: that the interannual variation of the max/min is much smaller than the seasonal variation, for example.