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.
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".
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.
"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.
Why are you using the pejorative term "propaganda"? It is communication.
I don't think you're confused about the data. I don't think I'm confused about the data. I don't think anyone is confused about the data.
To me the important thing is the data, I don't care if they call it "burning hot death" in the chart. You're focusing on a word that I don't care about, and that is used in accordance with its technical meaning. And you're ignoring the data and distracting from the issue it represents.
To convince me I'm wrong on the usage of the word anomaly - please find the etymology of this word as used here - I had a look and couldn't, but don't really think it matters enough to search for why this word was used in the first place.
But really, I think you're deliberately trying to detract from what the data shows by focusing on something irrelevant.
To know it was "intentionally misleading" you'd need to know their intentions, I don't see how you could do that. I don't see this as intentionally misleading, as you can probably guess, so I don't know why you would assume that whoever made this did.
I said here that the pre-1920 period, which is relatively flat (within a variation of around +/-0.5 deg C), represents years with normal temperatures:
I'd say anything outside of +/-1 deg C from that average would not be "normal", and would need need an explanation. I'm not an expert though, but eyeballing the data that looks reasonable to me. I have already said this though, so not quite sure why you're asking me again.
I also don't see this as misleading ("intentionally misleading communication") - are you saying there is not an "anomaly"? That there is no climate change? Or that any climate change is within normal variation, that is, not affected by industrial emissions?
The example you give of summer and winter having different temperatures is obviously not relevant to climate change as presented here. The "little ice age" has a scale and speed of change not comparable to what is presented here, as I've already mentioned.
Given all this I don't understand how you can think there is no anomaly. It is even less clear to me how you would conclude this was intentionally misleading when it seems totally reasonable to label this an anomaly based on the data and the science behind it, which you seem to be ignoring or disagreeing with.
I mean... they even have a chart of average temperatures going back to 1850, so it's not like they're hiding their data.
I guess you might be arguing that by calling it an "anomaly" they are making an assumption on the science that isn't justified by the chart. But the whole existence of this site is clearly premised on climate change being an issue, so the causality is the other way round. The site provides a simplified visualisation of data that shows what people have concluded through exhaustive scientific analysis.
The exhaustive scientific analysis provides the justification for the anomaly, this site shows this data in a way that's easy to digest. You shouldn't be looking at this data in isolation and saying there is man-made climate change, you should be looking at this site as a starting point to review more research and understand why this data that looks concerning is in actual fact really concerning.
If the scientific literature was in any was non-conclusive about whether there is genuine anthropogenic climate change, I'd have more sympathy to your point on whether using the word anomaly is appropriate or misleading. But you're not arguing the science, not even arguing the data, you're only arguing the word "anomaly", and for me that's such a long way from proving this to be propaganda that I don't feel you're arguing in good faith.
I am not at all concerned with the use of the word anomaly because I already am concerned about climate change. I'm assuming you're concerned about the use of this word because you're not concerned about climate change.
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.