Well There’s Your “Global Warming” Problem!
(With apologies to shade tree mechanics world wide finding odd broken bits in broken machinery…)
But realistically, the comparison of this graph with the one for Asia or Oceana is just stunning. The vast bulk of any “rising average” is not being carried by the ‘dead flat’ of Asia for 130 years, nor the ‘1/2 C wobble with 1/4 C drift” of Oceana. It will come out of places like this where the temperatures are raised dramatically.
But if all the “work” is being done by one or two small geographies in only one hemisphere, is it really Global? And is it really “warming”?
In the mid to late 1800s we get between 1/2 C and up to 1.5 C of “cooling of the data” for v3 (that will become ‘warmer present’ in comparison). Back in the late 1700s we get dramatic warming of the data that will provide an ‘offsetting warm adjustment’ so the average adjustment looks small (but adding heat in the distant past doesn’t change the slope of a trend line fitted from the new, colder, 1880 era to date).
It is interesting to note that the 1768 to 1794 era stays about the same as now. No warming over about 200 years. “Eighteen hundred and froze to death” shows up in 1816, but also quite a dip in 1836, so looking for the history of that time might be interesting. Any volcanoes in 1834-36? The mid 1930s also stay about the same ‘warmth’ as now.
Oddly. the volatility collapses in the 1960s, but comes back a little more recently. We again see the roughly 1/2 C “offset” in the 1987-1990 transition of equipment and processes that happened then.
In conclusion, it’s pretty easy to pick out where more ‘warming slope’ is added in v3 vs v1. It’s the place where the dark blue curve clearly is above the dark red line and where the light blue dT line is showing a more volatile light yellow dT for v3 putting data point on each side of it, but with a bit of cooling bias in the mid 1800s.
IMHO the “warming” in North America is entirely an artifact of moving thermometers to airports, swapping to electronic versions that have different thermal issues and different adjustments, Urban Heat Island as we developed more than places like Africa (that has cooled) and perhaps some ‘odd’ data adjustments as the ones here that put more change into the data for the same time and place than the actual ‘warming signal’ we are seeking.
We are seeing 1/2 C to 1 C of movement of the average anomaly for a continent based entirely on thermometer selection. With that much variation based on how GHCN Version One is created vs how GHCN Version 3 was crafted: How can you possibly claim that a 1/2 C variation in the anomaly over time within one set is “warming” of anything? It can simply be an artifact of creation of the dataset, just as v1 vs v3 shows artifacts of that size.