The IPCC exposed

[Little Fish]

@monkeylove,

so, are you going to read the linked article,

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

it appears that doug doesn't want you to read it either otherwise he would not have cut it out when quoting me and replying with irrelevance.

there is nothing unusual about the 20th century temperature, not in its absolute terms nor in its rate of rise. its just part of the 1000 year solar cycle.

@monkeylove,

one of the behavioral traits within a cult or religious order is controlling and limiting the information available to its members.

"The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle...."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3341045/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/

[Doug1029]

"The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle...."

So you are arguing that proxies are accurate. I take it that means you are renouncing your previous stance. So then, what of tree ring chronologies?

IF those cycles mentioned in your quote are having an impact on climate, it should be possible to detect them in long tree ring chronologies. The ones I work with are too short to show them, but ones like the bristlecone chronology (8400 years) are long enough. Do you think these cycles are important enough to produce a climatic effect?

Doug

P.S.: The de Vries cycle is short enough that it might be evident in storm frequencies for the central US (There is a variation in winter storm frequencies that might be related - or, it might be due to global warming, too. This might be a way to determine which.).

Doug

Edited October 10, 2013 by Doug1029

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I wonder who release CO2 in atmosphere during Snowball earth.

Oh ...I forgot...Sun heat Earth!

[Doug1029]

I wonder who release CO2 in atmosphere during Snowball earth.

Oh ...I forgot...Sun heat Earth!

In case you missed it - Snowball Earth was ended by the buildup of -- CARBON DIOXIDE -- from volcanoes.

Doug

[spacecowboy342]

At the risk of being branded a propagandist I would like to point again to the annual NOAA report dated 08/07/13 prepared by 380 scientists in 52 countries which shows that 2012 was one of the hottest years on record, global warming is not slowing, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.The number and severity of storms is increasing. Permafrost temperatures were at record highs and melting permafrost could release additional carbon and accelerate global warming. Skepticism is a good thing as long as it doesn't grow into willful ignorance.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112917764/global-warming-not-slowing-noaa-report-080713/.

[Little Fish]

At the risk of being branded a propagandist I would like to point again to the annual NOAA report dated 08/07/13 prepared by 380 scientists in 52 countries which shows that 2012 was one of the hottest years on record, global warming is not slowing, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.The number and severity of storms is increasing. Permafrost temperatures were at record highs and melting permafrost could release additional carbon and accelerate global warming. Skepticism is a good thing as long as it doesn't grow into willful ignorance.

http://www.redorbit....-report-080713/.

"Greenland’s ice sheet was found to have melted 97 percent"

happens regularly like clockwork...so what

and it means 97% of the area suffered a melt which it frequently does, the false impression that phrase wishes to convey is that there is only 3% of greenland ice left, so typical of the alarmists.

"Climatologists have warned that melting permafrost could release additional carbon into the atmosphere, which it has been sequestering for millennia"

more fear mongering, the ipcc concluded this is very unlikely, but why let realism interfere with the panic fest boondoggle.

"Extreme weather events are more frequent and more intense"

no they are not, stop lying.

"“The latest ‘State of the Climate’ report shows that the Earth continues to heat, the atmosphere is heating, the worldwide ice loss continues, and other symptoms of our warming planet march forward, without cessation"

the atmosphere has not been heating for 16 years, is this guy a denier, or a liar?

The number and severity of storms is increasing

no they are not, on both accounts.

evidence please.

[Doug1029]

"Climatologists have warned that melting permafrost could release additional carbon into the atmosphere, which it has been sequestering for millennia"

more fear mongering, the ipcc concluded this is very unlikely, but why let realism interfere with the panic fest boondoggle.

I didn't think I'd see you endorsing the IPCC. Why the change of heart?

"Extreme weather events are more frequent and more intense"

no they are not, stop lying.

In the central US, the number of storms has increased over the last 35 years. Mostly, this means small storms. The number of large storms was too variable for me to get a good handle on it using barometric pressures. I did not try to make estimates of intensity.

"“The latest ‘State of the Climate’ report shows that the Earth continues to heat, the atmosphere is heating, the worldwide ice loss continues, and other symptoms of our warming planet march forward, without cessation"

the atmosphere has not been heating for 16 years, is this guy a denier, or a liar?

We have been over this ad nauseum. In 1997 (16 years ago) the globally averaged mean annual temperature was 0.42 degrees above the 1951-1980 baseline. Only 1999 and 2000 had lower temps. 1998 and 2001 to 2012 ALL had higher temps. The lowest of those was 2008 with an average annual temp of 0.44 degrees. Last time I checked, 0.44 was larger than 0.42.

You would do better if you cherry-picked 1998 as your starting year. Its temp was 0.59 degrees above the baseline. Since then, only 2005, 2007 and 2010 have had warmer surface temps. But the rule in science is that if you have the data, you can't ignore it. Surface temp records are reasonably complete back to 1880. If your are going to ignore 2005, 2007 and 2010, you have to have a good reason - like all 3000+ stations were improperly adjusted, or something. So what is your reason for ignoring so much data?

no they are not, on both accounts.

evidence please.

I can't really speak to the situation for ALL storms as I deal with a limited, continental area. But between 1965 and 2005, the number of low-pressure barometric excursions increased considerably in the central US. Also, the number of severe winter storms (those that are detectable in tree rings) increased to an all-time high in the latter half of the 20th century. Because tree ring records only go back to 1745 in this area, I can't rule out some sort of long-term (160+ years) cyclical pattern. I am working to extend this record back further, but this is going to take some time.

Doug

[Kaa-Tzik]

This is like listening to some street preacher or a robot. Are there any humans in the house? Seems the real object is not debate, but waving bits of paper around and bogging everything down, trying to wear people down. I still contend this warmist stuff should be in the religous part of the forum as it seems the same mental processes are at work, and I'm being polite here....

[Little Fish]

I didn't think I'd see you endorsing the IPCC. Why the change of heart?

if an atheist is arguing with a catholic about the existence of god, it is legitimate for the atheist to quote the pope if he declared "god doesn't exist" without endorsing the catholic church.

I'll clarify- "EVEN the ipcc concluded this is very unlikely, but why let realism interfere with the panic fest boondoggle".

In the central US, the number of storms has increased over the last 35 years. Mostly, this means small storms. The number of large storms was too variable for me to get a good handle on it using barometric pressures. I did not try to make estimates of intensity.

spacecowboy was talking about globally, the US is only a very small percentage of the surface of the planet. you are cherry picking.

spacecowboy was also talking about other extreme events such as droughts, floods etc which EVEN THE IPCC have walked away from.

"Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found" - Professor Richard Lindzen

http://wattsupwithth...ate-assessment/

"There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence." - Professor Roger Pielke

http://rogerpielkejr...n-ipcc-ar5.html

We have been over this ad nauseum. In 1997 (16 years ago) the globally averaged mean annual temperature was 0.42 degrees above the 1951-1980 baseline. Only 1999 and 2000 had lower temps. 1998 and 2001 to 2012 ALL had higher temps. The lowest of those was 2008 with an average annual temp of 0.44 degrees. Last time I checked, 0.44 was larger than 0.42.

spacecowboy had asserted indirectly that global atmospheric temperatures continue to rise, when all the main data indices show the trend to be flat for 15-17 years. what you have done there has nothing to do with the recent trend.

You would do better if you cherry-picked 1998 as your starting year. Its temp was 0.59 degrees above the baseline. Since then, only 2005, 2007 and 2010 have had warmer surface temps. But the rule in science is that if you have the data, you can't ignore it. Surface temp records are reasonably complete back to 1880. If your are going to ignore 2005, 2007 and 2010, you have to have a good reason - like all 3000+ stations were improperly adjusted, or something. So what is your reason for ignoring so much data?

the quote is "continue to rise", it doesn;t talk about "since 1880", the context is "now", clearly this is a lie, and you know it since there has been no temperature rise for the last 15-17 years which is almost as long as the rise that preceded it which you constantly talk about.

I can't really speak to the situation for ALL storms as I deal with a limited, continental area. But between 1965 and 2005, the number of low-pressure barometric excursions increased considerably in the central US. Also, the number of severe winter storms (those that are detectable in tree rings) increased to an all-time high in the latter half of the 20th century. Because tree ring records only go back to 1745 in this area, I can't rule out some sort of long-term (160+ years) cyclical pattern. I am working to extend this record back further, but this is going to take some time.

Doug

this is cherry picking and appealing to your own authority, it is not evidence, what does the published evidence say about storms globally? it says there has been no trend globally and you know it. Edited October 11, 2013 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

spacecowboy was talking about globally, the US is only a very small percentage of the surface of the planet. you are cherry picking.

It's not cherry-picking when it's all the data you have and you make that explicit. Admittedly, I am comparing apples and oranges here. But if you'd get off your antagonism for a minute you'd understand that I admitted the large-storm models aren't all that good.

http://rogerpielkejr...n-ipcc-ar5.html

See my comments on NIPCC above. They have an occasional good comment, but one needs to use ones head when reading what they write.

spacecowboy had asserted indirectly that global atmospheric temperatures continue to rise, when all the main data indices show the trend to be flat for 15-17 years. what you have done there has nothing to do with the recent trend.

I have posted that trend many times. Trends are straight-line models. They tell you where things are headed AT THE MOMENT. You and I both know that 1998 was an outlier. You are pinning your entire claim on a single observation and ignoring 132 years of data - and that is the definition of cherry-picking.

the quote is "continue to rise", it doesn;t talk about "since 1880", the context is "now", clearly this is a lie, and you know it since there has been no temperature rise for the last 15-17 years which is almost as long as the rise that preceded it which you constantly talk about.

OK. let's talk about "now." The most-recent data indicate that global temps rose from 0.55 degrees above base in 2011 to 0.58 degrees above base in 2011. I'd say "continue to rise" is an accurate description.

this is cherry picking and appealing to your own authority, it is not evidence, what does the published evidence say about storms globally? it says there has been no trend globally and you know it.

Yes. That is an appeal to my own authority. I'll let you know when the article is accepted fro publication - probably this coming spring.

Doug

[Doug1029]

OK. let's talk about "now." The most-recent data indicate that global temps rose from 0.55 degrees above base in 2011 to 0.58 degrees above base in 2011. I'd say "continue to rise" is an accurate description.

As of the end of July, 2013 is shaping up to be the seventh hottest year on record, behind 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2010.

One interesting observation: this is the same sort of distribution that other turn-arounds in climate have had in the past. A little too early to tell yet, but stay tuned. Temperatures usually taper off slowly. This bears watching.

Doug

Edited October 11, 2013 by Doug1029

[spacecowboy342]

"Greenland’s ice sheet was found to have melted 97 percent"

happens regularly like clockwork...so what

and it means 97% of the area suffered a melt which it frequently does, the false impression that phrase wishes to convey is that there is only 3% of greenland ice left, so typical of the alarmists.

"Climatologists have warned that melting permafrost could release additional carbon into the atmosphere, which it has been sequestering for millennia"

more fear mongering, the ipcc concluded this is very unlikely, but why let realism interfere with the panic fest boondoggle.

"Extreme weather events are more frequent and more intense"

no they are not, stop lying.

"“The latest ‘State of the Climate’ report shows that the Earth continues to heat, the atmosphere is heating, the worldwide ice loss continues, and other symptoms of our warming planet march forward, without cessation"

the atmosphere has not been heating for 16 years, is this guy a denier, or a liar?

no they are not, on both accounts.

evidence please.

What part of four times the average melt between 1981 and 2010 do you not get? What part of record temps of the permafrost do you not get? You want evidence for storms ? Yeah I can find some.

http://www.usnews.co...-due-to-warming

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

http://news.national...ne-warming.html

Being skeptical doesn't mean to turning a blind eye to evidence in front of your face.

I realize 380 scientists preparing a report for NOAA may not carry the same weight with you as a Wall Street journal story but I'm sure they are trying their best

Edited October 11, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[Von Bismarck]

In the central US, the number of storms has increased over the last 35 years. Mostly, this means small storms. The number of large storms was too variable for me to get a good handle on it using barometric pressures. I did not try to make estimates of intensiy

I can't really speak to the situation for ALL storms as I deal with a limited, continental area. But between 1965 and 2005, the number of low-pressure barometric excursions increased considerably in the central US. Also, the number of severe winter storms (those that are detectable in tree rings) increased to an all-time high in the latter half of the 20th century. Because tree ring records only go back to 1745 in this area, I can't rule out some sort of long-term (160+ years) cyclical pattern. I am working to extend this record back further, but this is going to take some time.

Doug

But what if you look at data from around 1910-1940.

We had more storms in this period. And they were greater.

[MonkeyLove]

from your link "understated the rate and intensity of climate change"

you hold your belief because you think the climate has been relatively stable prior to the 20th century, read the article below and understand why you believe that, you'll also understand what you're not being told. if you want to continue with this nonsense then don't read it. up to you.

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

The question isn't whether or not a natural cycle exists but the effects of CO2 ppm on temperature anomaly. To understand that, you need to look at the BEST summary of findings, which Watts supported:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

and the NAS final report.

[MonkeyLove]

@monkeylove,

so, are you going to read the linked article,

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

it appears that doug doesn't want you to read it either otherwise he would not have cut it out when quoting me and replying with irrelevance.

there is nothing unusual about the 20th century temperature, not in its absolute terms nor in its rate of rise. its just part of the 1000 year solar cycle.

Didn't Watts support an independent study of this matter to settle the argument regarding AGW?

[MonkeyLove]

@monkeylove,

one of the behavioral traits within a cult or religious order is controlling and limiting the information available to its members.

"The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle...."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3341045/

http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

The problem isn't the presence of solar activity but the forcing factor of CO2 ppm. Again, consult the BEST summary of findings, which was promoted by skeptics, and the NAS final report.

[Little Fish]

The question isn't whether or not a natural cycle exists but the effects of CO2 ppm on temperature anomaly. To understand that, you need to look at the BEST summary of findings, which Watts supported:

http://rationalwiki....i/Anthony_Watts

and the NAS final report.

the natural cycle over the last 10,000 years has been shown to fluctuate by several degrees in as little as a century on a regular basis, 20th century warming is just 0.7 degrees, there is nothing unusual about the magnitude or the rate of change of 20th century warming, that is what the ipcc is not telling you, furthermore the past correlates nicely with solar activity, so why does the ipcc pay virtually no attention to solar effects on climate. it doesn't tell you because the scientific "reports" are edited and sexed up by a small group of activist who have a vested interest in not being wrong, so anything contrary to their "cause" is not accepted in their "reports" or watered down.

why do you keep bringing up BEST? there is nothing there which shows 20th century warming is due to co2. even the co-author of BEST has told you this. the 20th century was a grand maximum for solar activity, and yet Muller from the BEST study opinionated that all 20th century warming was due to co2, how can that be when the past was always perfectly correlated with solar activity and 20th century had an all time high in solar activity?

[Little Fish]

Didn't Watts support an independent study of this matter to settle the argument regarding AGW?

no, not to my knowledge.

Watts had argued correctly that the effects of Urban Heat Island were not being taken into account in the land based measurements.

when he investigated he found that urbanization had occurred to encompass a lot of the measuring stations, meaning that over the last 50 years, a lot of the thermometers were showing a warming bias because previously they had been in open fields and now they are on open tarmac.

after a lot of bickering, the team that compiled HADCRUT land based readings which the ipcc used accepted there was a UHI effect but did not adjust their data, so the temperature record previous to satellites is contaminated with false warming.

what the team at HADCRUT did was add their estimate of UHI to the uncertaintly, so when the activists and alarmist media show you a straight line graph of HADCRUT you are not being told it is higher than it should be because they very rarely show you the uncertainty bars.

Watts then did a more in depth study on his own dime with the help of hundreds of volunteers and found that there was a significant warming bias for nighttime readings on most of the thermometer stations, and for that he has been vilified by zealous activists, even on this forum. despite what activists say on this forum, watts's blog is the most viewed blog on global warming with contributions from a lot of the mainstream respected empirical scientists.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

What part of four times the average melt between 1981 and 2010 do you not get? What part of record temps of the permafrost do you not get?

it is a natural event which occurs like clockwork every 150 years.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

do you disagree with Goddard Glaciologist Lora Koenig who analysed the data with a view to the historical context?

it would have been unusual if this event did not occur.

http://wattsupwithth...-right-on-time/

[spacecowboy342]

But what if you look at data from around 1910-1940.

We had more storms in this period. And they were greater.

From 1910 to 1940 5 category 5 hurricanes were recorded in the Atlantic. In a similar time period 1983-2013 we see 12 category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic

[spacecowboy342]

it is a natural event which occurs like clockwork every 150 years.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

do you disagree with Goddard Glaciologist Lora Koenig who analysed the data with a view to the historical context?

it would have been unusual if this event did not occur.

http://wattsupwithth...-right-on-time/

Did you even read the link you posted? Yes melts happen but most seem to be commenting how extraordinary this was

[spacecowboy342]

This is like listening to some street preacher or a robot. Are there any humans in the house? Seems the real object is not debate, but waving bits of paper around and bogging everything down, trying to wear people down. I still contend this warmist stuff should be in the religous part of the forum as it seems the same mental processes are at work, and I'm being polite here....

The denial of evidence characteristic of religion seems to be coming from your side

[Little Fish]

Did you even read the link you posted? Yes melts happen but most seem to be commenting how extraordinary this was

97% melts happen regularly as show by the glacier data. do you disagree with the glacier expert who looked at the data who said "yep, right on time"?

if something happens regularly like clockwork, like for instance, the sun going down, then when the sun goes down tonight it won't be an unusual event. if someone claims that the sun going down is evidence for global dimming, what would you say to them?

[Little Fish]

The denial of evidence characteristic of religion seems to be coming from your side

from the ippc AR5

"Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010). Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated (Landsea et al., 2006; Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b) with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007a; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008, 2011). No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or short-lived. Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia landfalling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). Significant trends are not found in other oceans on shorter timescales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a significant positive trend in eastern USA using tide-guage data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in assessing long-term trends.”

http://www.climatech...t_Chapter02.pdf

[spacecowboy342]

from the ippc AR5

"Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010). Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated (Landsea et al., 2006; Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b) with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007a; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008, 2011). No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or short-lived. Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia landfalling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). Significant trends are not found in other oceans on shorter timescales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a significant positive trend in eastern USA using tide-guage data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in assessing long-term trends.”

http://www.climatech...t_Chapter02.pdf

So the basis of your argument is that the IPCC is not to be believed except when it seems to support your position?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm