The gauntlet has been tossed. The Franzke 2012 paper just noted that individual Eurasian surface station data rarely has a significant trend and that the few stations that do are near Iceland and coastal Scandinavia. I say that is an indication that the heat capacity of the oceans is the "driver" of the trend. The Franzke paper is a "yawner" since it is well known that individual stations are not likely to have a trend, requiring more sophisticated methods be used to "tease" out a meaningful trend.
My simple redneck logic tells me that the harder you have to work to find a relationship between two variables, the more likely it is you are looking at the wrong variables Tmin, is a more relevant variable than Tave for GHG impact, vegetation growth, survival and nearly everything that has to do with "Global" conditions. So why would I try to force fit anything to an artificial average value that sucks?
Being a redneck, I prefer to work in extremes, also known as boundary conditions. That means I would look at Tmax, Tmin then if it is required for extra credit, toss in a Tave that is nearly meaningless by itself.
Since Cook et al. decided they had to trim the most recent portion of their Taymer paleo reconstruction because it "diverged" from instrumental, showing that it doesn't significantly diverge from Tmin should show a link between Franzke's "yawner" and the real "yawner" that Tave sucks. In fact, using Tave, which varies by several degrees, instead of Tmin which varies by less than half of Tave, for a reference is not the brightest idea that climate scientists had when they started this mess. Since the "SST" is more of a Tmin value since it is take below the surface and land "Surface" temperature is actually 2 meters above the true surface, the entire "Global" Tave concept is a meaningless concept.
The challenge is to expend the least energy possible to prove the obvious.