Chicago snow 2011 and 1967 – global warming then too?

Global temperatures have huge day-night, season-to-season and day-of-year-to-day-of-year differences. Rainfall and wind the same. Solar radiation is not a steady thing, but varies AROUND the average by 20W/m2 (40W/2 if you consider that only half the world is in sunlight at any time), plus each hemisphere is lighted from 76% to 126% of its average area because the world axis is tilted. I haven’t mentioned that the albedos of the hemispheres is signficantly different, so that when the North should be cooler, it is actually (by average) 2.2K warmer. Nor have I mentioned that cloud cover varies on all sorts of time scales and has a different effect during the night (no sun) than during the day, and during the winter with snow on the ground than during the summer with green, brown and blue (different ground albedos).
All these averages! Each gets an “error” bar individually. As a planet and for happy calculations, these averages mean something. But for individuals, and for specific places where individuals live, the reality is not variation around the planetaruy averages, but variations of the spot, far greater than the “average”.
None of us experience a planetary average. We assume or calculate that all the variations disappear within a certain time period. The mathematical work requires it. Individually, locally, this is clearly not true. So we rage against a summer of heat and a winter of cold. It is what we experience. Not the “average” temperature going up 0.18K/decade.
So what is global warming? The complex interaction of the three stable variables, orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and hemispheric albedo (excluding cloud cover) give a non-unique input through the year. Anywhere. Cloud cover and circulation patterns are not random but patterned and interactive. Heat is accepted or denied and moved around in a time and location sensitive manner. It is an assumption that all of this, at a planetary scale, averages out so that we can detect a difference in the heating of the world that means something to an accuracy and precision of .18K over a decade. Is this true?
Clearly the world warms and cools by 4 – 10K, and sometimes over very short periods of time. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show that this happens, at least on a local scale. Glaciers melt. Savannas become deserts. And deserts become savannas and glaciers advance. These changes are not in question. And that we humans had nothing to do with the pre-1945 goings on, except locally (deforestation, agriculture). Right now, though, we are told that the 0.18K/decade has the human “fingerprint” of fossil fuel CO2 on it. But can we say that all the natural variation in input and output of heat can be averaged out so cleanly and over such a short time period that a 0.18K/decade global temperature “average” has any meaning outside of the non-perfect union of variables? And since we see the Arctic heating up more than elsewhere, but agree the global average is high because of this regional anomaly, can we say that this regional warmth is not just the unexpected result of the complex variables interacting as described above?
We – warmist and skeptics alike – are forced to use merged, homogenized and detrended data, adjusted and averaged out at a planetary scale. We are told that, mathematically/statistically we know “reality” to within 0.05K or better. We assume or are told that local events of larger than average magnitude do not distort the averages (and make them meaningless globally) or that they are random and cancelled out by equally large but local events of the other type. Perhaps. But do we know this to the 0.05K level of a decadal time-frame?
Weather is nature’s way of evening out the heat flow. Weather, not climate, is what moves heat around. So on what basis do we have for certainty that 0.18K/decade is not the result of imperfect balancing of input/output, in which local variations do not distort the apparent group behaviour?
The calculations of single numbers with an accuracy magnitudes less than the local variation over the planet in which regional changes are known to be perhaps a magnitude or more different one from the other, strikes me as open to much bigger uncertainty of interpretation than of calculation. Ultimately we work with what something “means”, not what it is. If the global population was stable to the extent that the global climate parameters are, we would look to its local cause to effect change. We would wonder if there was something special about where the increase was coming about, not suggest that globally people were reproducing more. And population change is a very, very simple issue.
What change is actually a global change and not local? What level of change globally is detectable as an expression of something outside the complex mix of variables?
Taking 10 people of 5 foot in height and averaging their height with 10 people of 7 foot in height does not tell you anything meaningful about the height of people. Add in someone of 6 foot in height, average their heights again, and you still know nothing meaningful from the average about what their height is, but now you can say the height of the group is getting greater.