I had a lot here but discovered it has already been done.
Overview
Detailed Timeline
TL;DR: The graph trends upwards to 1935 not because the number of tropical storms necessarily grew but our capability to detect and record them did. I quote:
Excepting 1983 (which was an abnormally quiet year) and 2005 (which was an abnormally active year) activity has been pretty steady (relatively speaking).
I'm calling weasel bullshit here. I'm calling it, and I'm going back on my earlier comment. Seeing this is getting me pissed off enough to make a liar out of myself.
The argument was whether or not the severity of hurricanes was influenced by changes to the climate. We agreed on utilizing GFDL as a source, because it is reasonably unbiased in findings. We even agreed that the number of hurricanes was largely consistent, based upon the data.
I argued that severity was increasing. You argued that the link was tenuous. I argued that your own factual source, at least half a dozen articles, proved your point was inaccurate. You weasel out of the argument by interpreting the intention of a scientific report, rather than using the words they put to paper. You aren't an honest operator here, you're coming into the debate with an agenda that you need to prove, no matter how you have to twist the words in order to come to the conclusion you want.
I was willing to stop there. It's frustrating when your opposition bogs down the argument by playing the "define every word and give it full context" tactic. It's designed for idiots, who know that their points aren't strong enough to stand on their own, without adding enough caveats. Utilizing that logic, you can make anything mean anything with enough twisting. I wanted to stop here, because you don't have an argument. You have a massive time sink. I was fine to stop here.
You follow up my last comment, with a chart of the number of hurricanes. You add the caveats that the last 40 years of data is all that we have with certainty, and you graph the number of events without any metric for severity (naming isn't a metric, a class 3 and 5 could both be named). You use this data to "prove" that the earlier statements are correct, only instead of focusing on where the scientists themselves put the emphasis, you create an outright lie to justify the conclusion you want.
Bullshit.
Either you're a liar, or an idiot. I can't reasonably call you an idiot, so you're a liar. Whether it's dishonesty to yourself, or just inability to recognize the lie, it doesn't matter. Read the data, then read their conclusions once more. Here's a refresher:
- It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
- There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
Your data proves just one part of that conclusion:
This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
Despite this very clear link, you've bastardized your data to mean that points 3 and 4 are somehow inaccurate. You look at the data and conclusions from your own source, written clear as day, and come to the opposite conclusion. I can only assume you're a liar. Idiots would have cited Fox News and the GOP. You've gone out of your way to cite credible bodies, yet jettison their conclusions when they don't fit your notions. It takes a feat of mental gymnastics akin to the truthers to look at all of the presented information, and somehow come to the conclusion you've come to.
Now I'm done. I have nothing else worth saying, because a dishonest player isn't worth having an argument with. A decade ago I argued that Global Warming was a scam, because the scientific data disproved it. Today I argue that climate change is real, and it is influencing the severity of weather phenomena. The scientific research agrees with me, and it's been proven by both the facts you've provided and the conclusions that scientists have put to academic papers. To state the opposite, based upon potential future proof from a new supercomputer, is just idiotic. Worse yet, what happens if your supercomputer agrees with the facts already presented? After this much mental gymnastics, I'd be hard pressed to see you not calling it bunk because the input data was limited.
Kinda seems like part of your earlier argument was also based off of the "potential" statement making the conclusion irrelevant. Ironically, your whole argument is based upon the potential of a new super computer. I'll be generous here, and call that unintentional duplicity.
If you're going to argue a point with science you have to accept data as facts. Whenever the data is reviewed, you can interpret it however you'd like. If you're going to argue a deep seated and irreversible belief, and guise it in the mask of science, you can stop talking now. The religious guise creationism in "intelligent design." Climate change denial guises their argument in "limited or potentially corrupt data." Somehow though, climate change deniers are always quick to offer facts that support their side. That's implicit bias, in the arena of the hard sciences, makes you worse than a half-wit. Leave biases at the door, or don't use science. You've demonstrated a massive twisting of words, blatantly cherry picking quotations, and offering unrelated facts as "proof." I can't argue with a zealot, because there is no end game. There is no reason. There is only a point, to which reality shall bend in its service.
And...the cat is out of the bag! Glad you understand this man-made global warming scam is ALL about politics!
