fair point but the data gets muddled when factoring in tropical storms which is left out of the data you are referencing (which are creating just as much damages if not not more that Hurricanes it appears).
Ref: [ncdc.noaa.gov]

I accept your data. Do you accept mine?

@Lukian Your data looks reasonable. It shows a slight rise in the number of hurricanes/cyclones in a tiny portion of the earth. Worldwide, there is no noticeable increasing trend.

@BD66 data?

@Lukian Follow the link

[policlimate.com]

@BD66 I did already but it does not account for tropical storms like I demonstrated. That said, I speculate it’s a worldwide trend.

@Lukian Look at the reference and search for

"Global Tropical Cyclone Frequency"

There is absolutely zero trend that it is increasing.

The NOAA site you reference has picked two tiny portions of the earth where the number of hurricanes and/or tropical storms appears to be increasing.

You are then extrapolating what's going on in two tiny portions of the earth to reach the wrong conclusion that it's a worldwide trend.

You don't buy the religious propaganda.

Stop falling for the NOAA propaganda.

[policlimate.com]

@BD66 what does this graph (from your reference) tell you? sure seems like an increase in global ACE since the 1970's mainly driven by the Northern Hemisphere.

@Lukian Higher than the early 1970's, but lower than the early 1990's. Certainly nothing to be raising global alarm bells about. It's not going to drive me to quit flying on airplanes, and ride a bicycle instead of driving a car. How about you?

@BD66 ah well, your reference does highlight (as many other references) an over all cycle of lows and highs in hurricanes over several years across the century. Time will tell what the next high will bring us (I'll bet it's going to be higher, again).
This is just one factor in the global changes we are (and will be) experiencing with increasing atmospheric carbon. Only recently have we started detecting methane in the atmosphere which is compounding the problem.
Alarm bells are merited, yes.
Living in a prosperous and developed country, you probably won't get to suffer too much about the consequences in your lifetime, but your kids will and their kids.
Just go ahead and tell them everything is fine.

As for your last comment, as individuals, our tools and resources to limit and decrease global carbon are limited. Government policies/stewardship and industry leadership/innovation are the only way to make it happen. You and I are pawns in this game as usual.

@Lukian "Government policies/stewardship and industry leadership/innovation are the only way to make it happen." If you look at where the increased consumption of CO2 is coming from, it's from the 1.386 billion in China and the 1.339 billion in India who want to lead the high energy consumption lifestyles of us here in the USA. Their consumption of coal is sky rocketing while ours is flat. Greenpeace was in India trying to get them to stop burning so much coal, and India kicked Greenpeace out of the country. Whatever self-inflicted punishment the US politicians inflict on the US people, it's an exercise in futility.

@BD66 I did not make the argument about this being a US only thing, did I? Last I checked, China and India have governments and Industry. Also, the last I checked, until 2020, every country in the world has signed the Paris Accord (or are intending to sign on i.e. Syria and Nicaragua) which indicate Stewardship in my book.
(also, are you buying into the carbon, fossil fuel conspiracy now?)

@Lukian The fact that China and India signed a document doesn't mean an damn thing. What matters is that they are burning more coal every year, while our consumption of coal goes down:

@BD66 you're not teaching me anything here. Coal is not the only fossil fuel.
Seems that Russia, India, USA and China (and another one called the Rest of World) have a big piece of the pie and a lot of work to do.

Unless you can do it yourself, how can countries be pressured to reduce their Carbon footprint? Peer pressure (via accords) from other governments as well as industry innovation.

ref:[ucsusa.org]

@Lukian "Unless you can do it yourself, how can countries be pressured to reduce their Carbon footprint?" They can't. If we force people into the USA to use more expensive sources of energy, our industries will become less competitive, and we will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow, and people will be forced to use their lower incomes to buy more expensive energy. Other countries will go forward using the cheapest forms of energy available. All we will be doing is inflicting suffering on ourselves.

@BD66 great you're all for renewables then?
[sciencealert.com]
there are more jobs in renewables than in fossil fuels.
[eesi.org]

I like you more and more... we think alike.

@Lukian When renewable forms of energy become more cost-effective than fossil fuels, energy companies will switch over and use renewables. It will happen just like magic, the way we shifted from paraffin candles to whale oil to kerosene to electric lights without government intervention. There's no reason to waste government money or punish American consumers in the meantime.

@BD66 hence my comment on industry innovation. Are you following me? You seem argumentative for some reason.

@BD66 oh looky here! Fresh off the press... Government Stewardship in action:
[arstechnica.com]

@Lukian Government lunacy is a more accurate term. New Mexico is already a poor state. Forcing the energy companies away from the cheapest source of energy will raise the costs of electricity to all New Mexicans, leading to more suffering from New Mexico's poor population.

@BD66 I see you are not verifying my references like I do yours. Shame. Solar is now the cheapest form of energy. Most renewables are cheaper than coal and petroleum. C'mon make an effort.

@Lukian Fine. If renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, there should be no need for any further government intervention. The greedy energy companies will use renewables for all future power plants, our work is done.

Youre winning the unintelligent post contest at the moment.

Perhaps you could try educating people, or a discussion? It seems your go to move is to name call and attempt to shame.

Rather weak and childish.

Ah yes, another climate change denier. Sad!

@Redheadedgammy

I don't deny climate changes.

Another ad hominem attacker with no take.

Sadder!

@BryanLV I accept this statement of yours : Perhaps a more accurate statement would be, First ever recording of a category 5... whithout omitting the in February and in the Northern Hemisphere part.

About this this statement: I don't deny climate changes
do you mean in general and over millions of years or Man made climate change?

@Lukian

"do you mean in general and over millions of years or Man made climate change?"

I accept the data that shows that climate changes as a result of human behavior. But that is not what this article is about.

Also, a scientific concensus of any sort is not the equivalent of accuracy or truth.

@BryanLV Thanks for clarifying that I accept the data that shows that climate changes as a result of human behavior.
You will not engage me with your other irrelevant comments above. Thanks.

@Lukian

Id expect nothing more from someone who would post such a misleading and irresponsibly titled article.

@BryanLV & @Lukian
Oh, to have been there with a wingsuit!!!!!

@BryanLV flattery will get you nowhere. X