Seeing this, I realize you misunderstood. Areas with more range of changeability will show a larger warming signal than areas that are already very warm due to regional climate factors. I.e., in a global warming scenario, the North Dakota fields would be expected to warm more that the Australian outback.
“Seeing this, I realize you misunderstood. Areas with more range of changeability will show a larger warming signal than areas that are already very warm due to regional climate factors. I.e., in a global warming scenario, the North Dakota fields would be expected to warm more that the Australian outback.”
Seeing this, I realize you “misunderstand” true science and logical use of it. Knowing that everything concerning science in the rest of your statement above is known, by us as well as the “scientists” it is accounted for and in that accounting demonstrates, that due to those known variabilities, and with them scientifically in tow, it is NOT “harder” to detect “warming” in the deserts of Australia than in North Dakota. What you speak is the language of political science (”warming signal”) intended to mask the absence of true science. The “range of changeability” is known and completely accountable in addressing the “weaker” but still present “warming signal” in an area of less “changeability”, when science uses that change, no matter how “weak” in an appropriately long term trend.
But, when the political science is demanding immediate results (not long term trend (1,000s of years), one can understand the purely political difficulty the political scientists have (they don’t want and cant sit on the desert for 100 years).
When you recognize (1) the errors made (a) in the selectivity of the starting points for both the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 and (b) in the starting values for CO2 at that starting point - in the “man made” mathematical models; and (2) the intentional manipulation of US temperature data in the early years (program code that lowers the temperature data input to the algorithms or many US sites for the early years and intentionally quits performing that lowering at a convenient time); then you know you have a political science project cherry picking “science facts” that fit a template that began with that political science project and not with the facts.
Regardless of any warming that any area of the world may be experiencing now, it (”warming”) is not “manmade” it is part of natural cycles that the solar system and Earth’s relationship to it has been producing throughout Earth’s existence. The rest (”manmade”) is religion (ignorance) when it is not intentional political science.