I really dislike the use of the word "anomaly" in climate change circles. It may be technically correct, but it feels like propaganda. All it is is the difference to the average of an arbitrarily chosen time frame.<p>It would actually be strange if temperatures where exactly like the average all the time, so calling it an anomaly if they are different from the average really seems misleading. Again, it may be the technically correct term, but it has a different meaning in "normal language" imo.<p>The trend of the temperature may be "anomal", but that is not what they call an "anomaly".
I really like this website. Well presented and informative.<p>I have been daydreaming of creating something similar that enabled testing weather hypotheses that are often thrown around by the media.<p>E.g., "Heavy Vancouver Rainfall Due to Climate Change". It would be great to get rainfall information for that area graphed over the last X years.<p>Does anyone have pointers to useful datasets or APIs that could aid in creating such a tool or website?
I'm presuming that the foundation here is solid and well-intentioned, but there are many different data sources that could be powering these visualizations so a clearer citation would be helpful (beyond what is provided, just the orgs, Berkeley earth+nasa).
Maybe visualizations like these will finally get the message through to the last bastions of ignorance.<p>Or maybe not. If at this point you are still pretend to be skeptical about the data, it's probably more to do with willful blindness rather than intellectual rigor and no amount of data will ever convince you otherwise.<p>Truth is that lots and lots of people benefit from that continued 'doubt' delaying further actions. Even though in the end we'll all suffer the devastating consequences - the political upheavals, the social unrest, the ecological destruction - there are still people that are so obtuse as to think that this will not tough them.<p>Party 'til the house burns down, I guess.