Doesn't sound dramatic to me, especially considering the process for calculating these "global" temperatures (stations near growing urban heat islands etc.).
I'd be more interested in long-time temperature increases in specific remote areas. One of the oldest continuous temperature records on a mountain in Germany shows less than 0.7C since 1800: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenpeißenberg_Meteorological...
You can only avoid this effect by not using urban stations, claiming the effect is small doesn't solve the problem.
I am specifically claiming that there is no known global temperature dataset that is frequently used in such alarming studies and contains no stations affected by the UHI effect. Since the linked article contains no references or links to sources, I cannot be more specific.
Can you reference the point in this research where the process should have taken this into account but didn't? Looking for specific points in primary sources if you don't mind.
Now that you mention it, I'd be interested in some sort of map of where all these weather monitoring stations are, with bolder colors indicating stations that have been in longer continuous operation.
There are thousands of measurement stations spread across the globe - on land, in the ocean and in the air.
Four independent datasets are generated by different groups:
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .
In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.ht...
Are you specifically clamining that the authors ignored this ?