Skip to content

Global Temperature Report – 2013

January 26, 2014

By Paul Homewood


First, the graphs.

The trends since 2002 are down on all sets except UAH.

I use 2002 as the start point, for the very good reason that for, most of that year, ENSO effect on temperatures was mainly neutral, as it has also been during 2013. (More on this later).

In particular, this approach avoids the accusation, often made, that the “pause” is not real as it relies on using 1998 as the start point.










As I have mentioned before, each dataset uses a different baseline period, against which to measure anomalies. I have therefore shown, in the table below, all four sets calculated against the same 1981-2010 baseline, that is already used by UAH. Interestingly, UAH come out as warmest, with the other satellite set, RSS, coolest. Meanwhile, the two surface datasets sit in between. The same applies to both ranking and the change since 2002.


Change since 2002 2013 Temps
Using 1981-2010 baseline
RSS 10 -0.10C 0.12C
UAH 4 +0.02C 0.24C
GISS 7 -0.01C 0.21C



Comparison with 2002


ENSO conditions have been neutral since September 2012. This is actually an unusually long interval, and the last long such interval was between April 2001 and March 2002.

During the latter period, the ENSO index averaged –0.011, and since September 2012, the average has been –0.095. The difference is pretty insignificant, given that the monthly index can often exceed 2.000, so a comparison of global temperatures during the two periods should be meaningful.




It is generally accepted that there is a time lag, before changes in ENSO affect global temperatures, of between 3 and 6 months. For instance, Kevin Trenberth here.

So let’s compare HADCRUT4 temperatures during the current neutral conditions with similar conditions in 2001/2, using both 3 and 6 month lags.


First using the 3-month lag.





And now a 6-month lag.





Under both assumptions, the current period is very slightly lower than 2001/2. I do not claim that this is evidence of cooling, the differences are too small to be significant.

However, it is clear that the standstill in temperatures, during the last 12 years at least, is real, and not just an artifact of ENSO changes.










  1. gregole permalink
    January 27, 2014 3:17 am

    All of it in tenths of a degree. We are doomed! /sarc

  2. January 27, 2014 3:19 am

    0,095 degree hmm … to monitor the WHOLE planet’s temp with precision of one thousandth of a degree – they are getting more and more unbelievable…

    Nobody knows what was the planet’s temp last year in +/- 3 degrees to save his / her life, because nobody is monitoring the 99,9999% of the planet… but they are talking in thousandh of a degree precision…

  3. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 27, 2014 4:08 am

    I don’t much care for modern technology either. Cell phones and satellites and all this other digital stuff ought to be outlawed. For weather related issues I have one of these:

    ~~~~~~Oh, okay,
    The RSS folks have a site that explains what they do. Worth a look.

  4. January 31, 2014 2:55 am

    QV PERMALINK said: ”Actually, they don’t claim to do that. error model, is 0.385c to 0.591c for 2013!”

    Hi QV,. you are calling it ”estimate”… well 0,385, that ”5” in 0,385 represents ”THE” thousandth of a degree precision…?

    It’s same as bureaucrats ”estimating” how much would cost to build a bridge – to look as if they know what they are talking about – they say how many millions of dollars, thousands and the few cents on the end, will cost – that looks as knowledgeable estimate , BUT by the time the bridge is built, it cost twice as much -this is same bureaucratic ”estimate”/crap, putting dollars and cents precision; to impress and confuse people, not to inform

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: