[kkjjkgjjgg]

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.

[ximeng]

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?

[kkjjkgjjgg]

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.

[ximeng]

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.

[kkjjkgjjgg]

No you are wrong, it is not that "science has shown there is an anomaly", and the word isn't being used because there is an anomaly. It is just a definition. I don't think you have understood the issue at all. Rather, you convince me even more that it is an issue.

For comparison, again, consider the average temperatures within a year, and then the daily temperatures are an "anomaly" and summer and winter would be anomaly because their temperatures deviate from the average. You wouldn't say "science has shown that summer and winter are an anomaly".

[ximeng]

Nobody at all other than you says summer and winter temperatures are anomalies. Really - what are you on about? This is a completely irrelevant example. Again who is getting confused here? There is no misunderstanding at all on the meaning of this data just quibbling on the word usage. Even if we call summer and winter temperature variations anomalies - who cares?

Anomaly is used because this is a new phenomenon due to human actions. You have no apparent concern about this but are just worrying about word usage.

Why do you think that the word temperature anomaly is used in climate science? The important issue is the global risk not your carping about the terminology.

[kkjjkgjjgg]

"Anomaly is used because this is a new phenomenon due to human actions. You have no apparent concern about this but are just worrying about word usage."

No you are wrong. That is exactly the issue. It is not used because it is a new phenomenon due to human action. It is simply a technical term meaning different to some average. That is why it would also be used in a chart of temperatures throughout the year.

You demonstrate the issue very well. However, I give up convincing you, as clearly you won't understand it for some reason.

"Why do you think that the word temperature anomaly is used in climate science? The important issue is the global risk not your carping about the terminology."

So you admit it is being used for propaganda, not for scientific reasons. Exactly what I am concerned about.