jiddu

You are right, 0.13 is not a large part of 1.43. I meant to say it's a large part of the sudden jump from around 1.2 the years before.

Human-induced warming in 2023 is 1.31, showing the natural variability was a large part of last year's 1.43 warming. Also, emissions have not risen above pre-covid levels in 2022, hopefully a sign of emission starting to decline in the coming years.

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.