undefined | Better HN

0 pointskkjjkgjjgg4y ago0 comments

Yes - I know it is technically the correct term. If you look it up on Wikipedia, you get the proper definition. But for people not in the field it suggests something different than it actually shows - even though by chance there is also an actual "anomaly" in the form of the rising temperature trend.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ximeng4y ago· 2 in thread

You're really straining for this point - nobody is going to be confused by the use of the word anomaly. It is not "chance" that there is an actual anomaly, that's the reason the terminology is being used.

If they'd used the word "deviation" would you have been happy? Or is your real objection to the use of the word "anomaly" to describe temperature deviations in science generally?

kkjjkgjjggOP4y ago

Yes I would have been happy with the word deviation. The discussion here has shown that many people misunderstand the use of the word anomaly.

I don't know what you mean by "it is not chance that there is an actual anomaly".

As for "straining the point" - well I made the point, people responded, and I responded again.

ximeng4y ago

I don't really think anyone is misunderstanding the word "anomaly". I get what you're saying I just don't think it's an issue.

By saying it is not chance I mean that the word "anomaly" is used because there is an anomaly. That's what appears to be confusing you, that you feel this word is being picked to imply something about the science, when in fact the causality is the other way around. The science has shown there to be an anomaly and the word has been used because there is an anomaly. The fact that it is less relevant pre-1920 is not important because people care about climate risks now when there is a clear anomaly shown in the data. You're focusing on something utterly unimportant.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse