Again - it's not arbitrary! It's chosen because industrial emissions have affected the climate. There is a very clear reason why it was chosen. That's why we use the word anomaly too - it isn't chance!
Are you trying to say that it's not an anomaly at the beginning of the period in the chart when the delta is negative? I already granted that point but it doesn't matter because everybody already knows there is an actual anomaly due to industrial emissions! The "implication" that the 10 years were "normal" is not questionable because the temperature was normal before! This case doesn't need to be made here because it's been made by a global coalition of governments and scientists in exhaustive detail.
From Wikipedia on mini ice age:
"...a multi-centennial period of relatively low temperature beginning around the 15th century, with GMST averaging –0.03 [–0.30 to 0.06] °C between 1450 and 1850 relative to 1850–1900."
This is within the annual variation I was suggesting and is not comparable to what we see today. It's irrelevant.
"There is a very clear reason why it was chosen. That's why we use the word anomaly too - it isn't chance!"
So it is propaganda. The official definition of temperature anomaly is just "distance to an average".
There was temperature variation before industrialization, for example mini ice ages, so simply showing there is a temperature difference to some small period of time in the 19th century is not sufficient to show there are "anomalies".
You're not reading what I said. I just responded on "mini ice ages" and you ignored it. It's clear why they are using that period, and is scientifically justified.
Propaganda is a pejorative term that you're not justifying the usage of, and I certainly don't agree with your usage here.
I don't know the etymology of anomaly, but I think it's a perfectly sensible usage.
You are avoiding the question of whether you think there is an anomaly, probably for the good reason that there clearly is one in the colloquial and scientific senses of the word.
The data and science are clear, and I don't think your professed confusion at the use of the word anomaly is in good faith.
If you don't think there's a problem to be addressed, then it's on you to show the data doesn't show an issue. Just making accusations of propaganda is not good enough.
Are you trying to say that it's not an anomaly at the beginning of the period in the chart when the delta is negative? I already granted that point but it doesn't matter because everybody already knows there is an actual anomaly due to industrial emissions! The "implication" that the 10 years were "normal" is not questionable because the temperature was normal before! This case doesn't need to be made here because it's been made by a global coalition of governments and scientists in exhaustive detail.
From Wikipedia on mini ice age:
"...a multi-centennial period of relatively low temperature beginning around the 15th century, with GMST averaging –0.03 [–0.30 to 0.06] °C between 1450 and 1850 relative to 1850–1900."
This is within the annual variation I was suggesting and is not comparable to what we see today. It's irrelevant.