Here are the 7 “regions” or roughly continents, as graphs that compare GHCN version 3.3 to version 4. There is one significant quirk in this comparison in that both Russia and Kazakhstan were split between Europe and Asia in v3 but are now lumped into Asia since the version 4 data are not arranged quite the same way. They are arranged by country, not by region.
Now the major point I’d make here is that we are regularly harangued that since it is all done with anomalies the particular thermometers used doesn’t make any difference. Well, then, OK, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so since these are done with anomalies “it doesn’t matter”…
Make of them what you will. “The data just are. -E.M.Smith”
What I find most striking is just how different the various charts are in their overall size, dispersion, and ‘shape’ of the data. Followed closely by the way they all tend to narrow at the “baseline” period (roughly 1950 to 1990) then (all but Antarctica) have a rapid rise at the last 20 years of data.
Now were the CO2 theory of causality to be in these data, ought not the dispersion to be less variable? Ought not the “rise” have started back about 1950 instead of 40 years later (and just when all the instruments were being changed to rapid response electronic devices on short cables to buildings and / or at airports filled with tarmac and jet exhaust…)
Overall, the data just look rather “manicured”.
Then there is the simple fact that they are DIFFERENT. These are both the “unadjusted” data sets. Especially in the deeper past where there was only one or a half dozen thermometers, there is no reason what so ever for the dots to be different. They are, in theory at least, the SAME data from the SAME instruments. Something in this “unadjusted” data looks very adjusted.