Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

climatechangetracker.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#51

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #49
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they picked a certain time frame and compare to the average temperature of that time frame. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the reference time frame is some 20 year period in the end of 20th century, but not sure if I remember it correctly.

From the site the baseline is very clearly stated: What is the Yearly Average Temperature Anomaly? It is the difference between the average yearly global surface temperature and its pre-industrial baseline. The pre-industrial baseline is calculated as the average temperature from 1850 till 1900. The value for the current year is actually the average for the last 12 months, for example in June we include values since…

As I said - the issue I have that a year having a different temperature from the average of some timeframe is not actually "anomal". It is to be expected. It would in fact be weird in most cases if temperature would be exactly like the average.

So calling any difference to the average an "anomaly" seems misleading to me.

The trend of rising temperature may still be "anomal", but that is not what they are referring to.

Your explanation kind of points out the problem, as you also seem to think a "deviation from the norm" is somehow unusual.

If you look at another example, it should be obvious: take the average temperature throughout one year, then plot the "anomaly" of daily temperatures in that year against the average temperature of the year. Then in summer it would be "anomaly hot" and in winter it would be "anomaly cold". Except it wouldn't actually be anomal to be hotter in summer and colder in winter at all.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#52

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #51
ximeng wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the site the baseline is very clearly stated: What is the Yearly Average Temperature Anomaly? It is the difference between the average yearly global surface temperature and its pre-industrial baseline. The pre-industrial baseline is calculated as the average temperature from 1850 till 1900. The value for the current year is actually the average for the last 12 months, for example in June we include values since…

As I said - the issue I have that a year having a different temperature from the average of some timeframe is not actually "anomal". It is to be expected. It would in fact be weird in most cases if temperature would be exactly like the average. So calling any difference to the average an "anomaly" seems misleading to me. The trend of rising temperature may still be "anomal", but that is not what they are referring to…

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language by your use of the word “anomal” - which doesn’t mean what you think it does. This may be contributing to your confusion.

https://xkcd.com/1732/ Suggests the fastest temperature change in last 20k years is around 1 deg c in a 1000 years. The graph linked here shows 1 deg c in around 50 years.

Annual variation is up to 0.3 deg c, mostly less, from eyeballing the graph data. If you’re suggesting that there is a reason we shouldn’t call a 1 deg c plus change an anomaly, you should really just say what that is, just like you have for winter and summer which nobody would call an anomaly.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#53

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #52
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said - the issue I have that a year having a different temperature from the average of some timeframe is not actually "anomal". It is to be expected. It would in fact be weird in most cases if temperature would be exactly like the average. So calling any difference to the average an "anomaly" seems misleading to me. The trend of rising temperature may still be "anomal", but that is not what they are referring to…

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language by your use of the word “anomal” - which doesn’t mean what you think it does. This may be contributing to your confusion. https://xkcd.com/1732/ Suggests the fastest temperature change in last 20k years is around 1 deg c in a 1000 years. The graph linked here shows 1 deg c in around 50 years. Annual variation is up to 0.3 deg c, mostly less, from eyeballing the graph dat…

The chart is a chart of the yearly "anomaly". So even a 0.3 degree deviation is plotted in the chart as an "anomaly". Clearly you don't understand the issue, which is exactly my point. It is a misleading label.

I am not saying the rise by whatever many degrees is not an anomaly. That is simply not what they plot. They don't call the steep rise an anomaly, they call every deviation from the arbitrary average an anomaly. They don't plot the "steepness of the rise", although you can see it in the chart. Every point in the plot is called an "anomaly", not the plot as a whole. Even the data points where a year is colder than their arbitrary average is called an anomaly in their chart.

English is not my first language but I think I know what an anomaly is supposed to be.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#54

Post by esarbe »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #41
esarbe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are "climate change circles" supposed to be? You mean the people not willfully blind of the facts? Sure, must be propaganda.

I mean people trying to show or prove the effects of climate change. Whether you believe in it or not, there supposedly are specialists working in that area. At least that is usually the argument, that there are experts who worked it all out whom we should listen to. So I think those can be called "climate change circles".

Since at this point 99.9% [0] of all studies come to the conclusion that climate change is real and man made, can we just use the phrase 'reputable scientist' instead of 'climate change circles'?

[0] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#55

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #53
ximeng wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language by your use of the word “anomal” - which doesn’t mean what you think it does. This may be contributing to your confusion. https://xkcd.com/1732/ Suggests the fastest temperature change in last 20k years is around 1 deg c in a 1000 years. The graph linked here shows 1 deg c in around 50 years. Annual variation is up to 0.3 deg c, mostly less, from eyeballing the graph dat…

The chart is a chart of the yearly "anomaly". So even a 0.3 degree deviation is plotted in the chart as an "anomaly". Clearly you don't understand the issue, which is exactly my point. It is a misleading label. I am not saying the rise by whatever many degrees is not an anomaly. That is simply not what they plot. They don't call the steep rise an anomaly, they call every deviation from the arbitrary average an anomal…

Pre-1920 is roughly in-line with average, 1920-1970 looks to be above average but could be argued to be within normal range of variation, post-1970 is clearly above normal range of variation.

Your concern seems to be (1) that there is some negative connotation to the word "anomaly", (2) that the chart labels small differences anomalies rather than just large differences, despite small differences being possibly within a natural range of variation, and (3) that a baseline has been arbitrarily and improperly chosen.

These are all non-issues. The word "anomaly" as used here is clearly defined, and means deviation from a baseline. It is not being used in a pejorative or leading sense. In any case, the data is clear - there is a larger deviation towards higher temperatures, over many years, without historic precedent.

What you call an arbitrary average is not arbitrary. It is chosen for a clear reason - the temperature rise is due to industrial emissions which did not exist prior to the period covered by this chart, and at that point global temperatures were more stable than they are now by around an order of magnitude.

Nobody should be confused or misled by the use of the word anomaly here. The context is obvious to anyone paying attention to the science. I doubt you're confused by the data as presented, so I really don't understand why you're concerned about the title.

If it helps, think of the chart as showing which years actually are "anomalies". You seem to have a vague definition of an "anomaly" as something like a significantly large change from a specific average - presumably the temperatures over the last 1000 years would be sufficient.

I feel like you're expecting this chart to show more than it does, it's really very simple, and in no way misleading.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#56

Post by zdragnar »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #44
zdragnar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charts and visualisations are a great way to trick people. Not only is the source data obscured (and so readily cherry picked) but it opens up all sorts of tricks around visual perception. I also suspect most people yet to be convinced will immediately think back to Al Gore's infamous hockey stick chart when presented with visual simplifications of deeply complex climate data. At the heart of the matter, looking at s…

Surely you mean the infamous lies about the Mann 1999 "hockey stick"? The Mann 1999 results are correct (see for instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5505119/figure/... for confirmation) and the graph doesn't do anything more nefarious than the plot summaries you'll see in imdb: it summarises a complicated thing.

The results are only verified correct for the recent past (for which we already have data for from actual, rather than proxy readings) but even the NAS committee concluded that from 900-1600 they had only mild confidence in the method, and before that very little.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#57

Post by jiddu »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #53
ximeng wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language by your use of the word “anomal” - which doesn’t mean what you think it does. This may be contributing to your confusion. https://xkcd.com/1732/ Suggests the fastest temperature change in last 20k years is around 1 deg c in a 1000 years. The graph linked here shows 1 deg c in around 50 years. Annual variation is up to 0.3 deg c, mostly less, from eyeballing the graph dat…

The chart is a chart of the yearly "anomaly". So even a 0.3 degree deviation is plotted in the chart as an "anomaly". Clearly you don't understand the issue, which is exactly my point. It is a misleading label. I am not saying the rise by whatever many degrees is not an anomaly. That is simply not what they plot. They don't call the steep rise an anomaly, they call every deviation from the arbitrary average an anomal…

I think I understand your issue.

The term 'temperature anomaly' has come to mean: A temperature anomaly is the departure from the average temperature, positive or negative, over a certain period (day, week, month or year).

If I look up 'anomaly' in a dictionary: a person or thing that is different from what is usual, or not in agreement with something else and therefore not satisfactory

The word anomaly is only used for unusual/unexpected things. Where in the scientific world the term temperature anomaly doesn't have to be used for unusual and unexpected things. For example a temperature anomaly of 0, which isn't unusual or unexpected at all, is still a valid temperature anomaly. However, you would never use the dictionary meaning to classify the 0 as an anomaly.

Maybe it feels more neutral to use a term like temperature deviation or delta.

I don't know who initially came up with the term temperature anomaly and what their intend was, so I won't blame anyone of propaganda.

The temperature rise since pre-industrial times as a whole is generally considered an actual anomalous situation, so it seems fine to keep using the term temperature anomaly in this case.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#58

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

jiddu wrote: post #57
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chart is a chart of the yearly "anomaly". So even a 0.3 degree deviation is plotted in the chart as an "anomaly". Clearly you don't understand the issue, which is exactly my point. It is a misleading label. I am not saying the rise by whatever many degrees is not an anomaly. That is simply not what they plot. They don't call the steep rise an anomaly, they call every deviation from the arbitrary average an anomal…

I think I understand your issue. The term 'temperature anomaly' has come to mean: A temperature anomaly is the departure from the average temperature, positive or negative, over a certain period (day, week, month or year). If I look up 'anomaly' in a dictionary: a person or thing that is different from what is usual, or not in agreement with something else and therefore not satisfactory The word anomaly is only used…

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.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#59

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #58
jiddu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand your issue. The term 'temperature anomaly' has come to mean: A temperature anomaly is the departure from the average temperature, positive or negative, over a certain period (day, week, month or year). If I look up 'anomaly' in a dictionary: a person or thing that is different from what is usual, or not in agreement with something else and therefore not satisfactory The word anomaly is only used…

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.

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?

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#60

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #59
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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.

Post reply on HN