You seem to be implying a certain fact, but it appears the baselines have changed.

So the recent 'cold' numbers aren't as important, because it is based on a different baseline than the first chart. Now, if you had that in mind and want to argue that global warming has slowed down over 15 years or so, OK.

If I wanted to maintain a warming story, I would look at the long term trend, and note that recent years are above the long term average, some of the warmest on record TM-BigGryph. Global warming is thus ongoing. And highlight the temperatures at Barrow.

I wonder if Barrow is affected by having thermometer at an airport, or some other effect.

GCNP, it's not just a changed average, as the city-by-city chart has different differences for each city.

The data are the same, the difference is how they calculate the mean. The second "archived" figure shows temperature change relative to the average temperature over 1977-2012. The first figure is temperature change relative to some other average temperature (but I can't tell what that is, I only can be certain the average temperature for the first figure is lower than the average temperature for the 1977-2012 figure). You could see that if you had considered the distribution of highs and lows are the same in the more complete temperature record and the one from 1977-2012. The only difference is where they draw the zero line and which bars are blue and which are red.

The explanation of the two figures is horrible, but I don't see a real issue. The main conclusion is there is little evidence of continued warming in Alaska over the past couple of decades. The conclusion is, as they kind of suggest, the PDO is playing a role. I suspect this is explained in more detail by the paper referenced here:

http://oldclimate.gi.alaska.edu/Research...

where that second figure likely comes from.

You are seeing malfeasance and skullduggery where there are none because the home office led you astray (and like most climate skeptics you are prone to conspiracy ideation). Again. Don't you ever get tired of looking stupid and incapable of figuring things out for yourself? Your handlers are laughing their asses off at how gullible you are. (It is also of little surprise that the graphs are useless to other climate skeptics. You guys can't interpret data even if it marched around you with a brass band singing descriptions about itself.)

Mike, you say: "@gcnp: I am certainly not suggesting malfeasance in this question"

But there is an implicit statement in the last paragraph of your first details, I quote you my dear:

"Bonus question: Let's assume you are a climate alarmist scientist who wishes to put out a press release which will be approved by your boss at the Alaska Climate Research Center. How bad could you make things look and how would you support it?"

I like science and I don't like politics (in spite of talking about it incessantly in relation to AGW) so no I wouldn't be considered a good climate scientists in some of those organizations IMO.

Frankly Bill, I don't think Ottawa Mike has a political agenda. His agenda is science. Ask yourself how is it I know your politics and I have never met you. I would be shocked, shocked if you had a conservative bone in your body. If anyone has a political agenda against AGW, it is me. And I am quite certain he accepts evolution as "factual" with the caveat it is still a theory. Just because you are skeptical of one theory doesn't mean you are skeptical of all theories. That is a lame charge that alarmists invariably make.

I found the charts interesting. I found it interesting that the vast majority of warmth came in the winter. I still think they should change the term global warming to global moderation. I guess I draw a lot of contour maps but I would want to map those places and contour the various changes to see if there are any useful patterns. I am sure someone did it. Those graphs aren't really useful to me well except they they really don't seem to be useful which is a finding in itself.

I wonder if you have an opinion on evolution, string theory, universal inflation, or the formation of RNA. No? Just global warming? Sounds to me like you have a political opinion, and no idea what you are talking about it terms of the science of climatology.

Your use of these graphs demonstrates that. You are pointing to a snapshot in time (two different ones actually), for land temperatures only, in just the state of Alaska. This tells you nothing about climate change. You're like the blind man trying to describe an elephant after touching only its tail. If you want to meaningfully measure warming you need to look at the whole world, and you need to include the oceans.

Update:

That's great that you're for gay marriage. It doesn't excuse your rejection of the scientific method when it comes to your pet issue. If you think you have some insight into the purported inaccuracy of climate models, you should support that position with evidence and get your paper published. But that's really hard to do, isn't it. Accusing climatologists of bias, on the other hand, is easy.

I'll leave the science to the scientists, just as I'll leave the search for dark matter to the astronomers, the search for a new book to Amazon, and the search for Big Foot to moustachioed crackpots in orange puffy jackets.

The last few times the public started doing science, we ex-communicated astronomers for saying the earth orbited the sun, hung and burnt women because they clearly were witches, reduced the 'herd immunity' by stopping kids having the MMR vaccine thereby killing children with measles, and in Europe, allowed people to have homeopathy paid for under public healthcare schemes.

I can doctor a graph just like Hansen and Mann .

Science can't even be defined by scientists.

The "theory of relativity" has collapsed into a black hole.