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

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#61

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #55
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…

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 withi…

"In any case, the data is clear - there is a larger deviation towards higher temperatures, over many years, without historic precedent."

Except you also seem to misunderstand the use of the word, as it is completely unrelated to there being a "deviation towards higher temperatures". At most you could argue that it doesn't matter if people misunderstand it, as there happens to actually be an "anomaly" anyway.

About the reference time frame - I think things were going on before, like mini ice ages and what not. However I merely wanted to point out that the timeframe is arbitrarily chosen, not that it is necessarily a bad choice. In combination with the word "anomaly" it becomes more questionable as it kind of implies that those 10 years were "normal".

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#62

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #61
ximeng wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 withi…

"In any case, the data is clear - there is a larger deviation towards higher temperatures, over many years, without historic precedent." Except you also seem to misunderstand the use of the word, as it is completely unrelated to there being a "deviation towards higher temperatures". At most you could argue that it doesn't matter if people misunderstand it, as there happens to actually be an "anomaly" anyway. About th…

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.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#63

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #60
ximeng wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#65

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #63
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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".

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#66

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #65
ximeng wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 ano…

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.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#67

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #66
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ano…

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…

"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.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#68

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #67
ximeng wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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 demo…

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.

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#69

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

ximeng wrote: post #62
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In any case, the data is clear - there is a larger deviation towards higher temperatures, over many years, without historic precedent." Except you also seem to misunderstand the use of the word, as it is completely unrelated to there being a "deviation towards higher temperatures". At most you could argue that it doesn't matter if people misunderstand it, as there happens to actually be an "anomaly" anyway. About th…

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 actu…

"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".

Re: Tracking Crucial Metrics of Earth's Global Warming

#70

Post by ximeng »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #69
ximeng wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actu…

"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 sho…

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.

Post reply on HN