That would still be a mess, in mostly the same way. All it does is emphasize that the values have a coarse 1-year sampling rate.
The real mistake is that the most rapidly-changing values should have been in the middle, with the slowly-changing values at both top and bottom. This would help align the values from one sample to the next, making them easier to follow across the chart.
The real mistake is that the most rapidly-changing values should have been in the middle, with the slowly-changing values at both top and bottom. This would help align the values from one sample to the next, making them easier to follow across the chart.