[Tricks]

Can't argue with complete data? Look at only something specific. Like instead of data from the last 150 years, use data between 1998 and 2010 or some random arbitrary bullshit like that.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

Can't argue with complete data? Look at only something specific. Like instead of data from the last 150 years, use data between 1998 and 2010 or some random arbitrary bullshit like that.

That's why when I argue, I use all the data. The entire known atmospheric CO2 record, the entire known average climate for the last 800,000 years . . .

You can't know the complete model without knowing about all the data.

[N_Fiddledog]

You two need to get off your high horses and pay attention to what was actually said.

IPCC, rep., Kevin Trenberth's prediction of more frequently occurring hurricanes, increased in intensity, coming to the Atlantic region at a press conference in 2005 turned out to be false. That is a fact. No consideration of any added data is going to make it stop being a fact.

Doc calls what claim Trenberth's prediction was is a misquote. He doesn't know that. As far as I can find Trenberth's quotes from that press conference have been wiped off the internet.

All I can find are the insinuations reports such as this one from the Washington Post concluded were made.

$1:

Chris Landsea, who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division in Miami, said Monday that he would not contribute to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's chapter on atmospheric and surface climate conditions because the lead author had told reporters global warming contributed to intense Atlantic hurricanes last year.

In a letter he posted on the Internet, Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth's assertion in October that in light of current warming trends, "the North Atlantic hurricane season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan22.html

So when he talks about the 2004 hurricane he's talking about this:

$1:

Hurricane Ivan was a large, long-lived, Cape Verde hurricane that caused widespread damage in the Caribbean and United States. The cyclone was the ninth named storm, the sixth hurricane and the fourth major hurricane of the active 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Ivan formed in early September, and reached Category 3 strength on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ivan

So it was a scare tactic based on an Atlantic landfall hurricane. The year after that there was Katrina which added weight to Trenberth's claim.

The controversy between Landsea and Trenberth happened during the writing of IPCC 4. I believe that came out in 2007. Between 2007 and last year there were no Category 5 landfall hurricanes. Therefore Trenberth's prediction of more intense, more frequent Atlantic hurricanes coming was incorrect.

That was what was stated and that was correct.

Now as far as you two, puffed up on your high horses, posting about your superior consideration of complete data and pointing fingers at "cherry picking" this may be a case of physician heal thyself.

2005 was an anomalous year of a record 4 atlantic cat 5 hurricanes and wasn't even the time period I was talking about. But if you want to make a valid argument about Atlantic Cat 5 hurricanes in general you'll need to compare two periods of at least 30 years (which would constitute a trend) to make a valid point. In general, the argument over whether global warming is influencing Atlantic hurricanes is a much larger one requiring much more data. I would expect 2 great data driven scientists like yourselves to know that.



My point was climate scientist, Kevin Trenberth's scary prediction of more frequent, more intense hurricanes coming to devastate America's coast was wrong in 2007.

[N_Fiddledog]

This was Kevin Trenberth from that era of IPCC 4 as I remember him all over and around everything from Hurricane Katrina to Al Gore's fauxcumentary an Inconvenient Truth:

[BartSimpson]

I lock.

The topic was about five predictions of doom that were eventually disproven. The discussion about other aspects of global warming and claims about/against it are for another topic.