There are studies (starting in 2005) that show more intense cyclones GLOBALLY and a few (starting in 2011) that show more frequent cyclones GLOBALLY.
The problem with hurricane studies & global warming in general is that (1) there are not a lot of hurricanes, so it is hard to reach statistical significance due to the threat to Statistical Conclusion Validity of having a small data set (which has nothing to do with whether GW is or is not impacting hurricanes). (2) An issue re frequency is that there are several factors that go into determining whether or not a hurricane will form, beyond those related to GW. Nevertheless they have been able to establish GLOBALLY that GW is increasing the intensity AND frequency of cyclones, the former being more robust than the latter.
The problem with your information is that you truncate the small data set even further by limiting it to a smaller area (the North Atlantic), and not all the oceans of the world, and only those hitting land. Even so there is beginning to emerge some evidence that GW is impacting North Atlantic cyclones, so the question is do we want to wait 50 or 100 years for enough stats to come in to definitively say that GW is increasing N. Atlantic hurricanes? Or to we take a prudent path of mitigating GW now. As mentioned, Americans especially hate prudence and love risk-taking, perhaps just for the thrill of it, so perhaps the answer is they’d rather follow you than me.
A more important view would be to look at the theory and physics behind the GW-cyclone connection, such as the connection between sea surface temps (which have been shown to be increasing with global warming) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) or intensity of the storm, and there is evidence for this in the N. Atlantic even with the cut-down small data set.
see
gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
As for me, I even considered Hurricane Andrew that hit Florida in 1992 to have been impacted by GW, which made me all the more intent on mitigating GW. I understand the physics and possible linkages; I don’t need 95% certainty to act prudently. For one thing, we now live in a globally warmed world, so in effect nearly everything that can be theoretically linked to GW is indeed being impacted by GW. It’s the scientists stuck in their null hypothesis that are lagging behind, and the denialist industry that is totally perverse in their rigging the data so as to fool people, their corruption of science.
So the people are given 2 choices: 95% confidence required or 101% confidence required before they can say GW is happening or impacting cyclones, or their lump is cancerous and go for surgery; 80% certainty their lump is cancerous will not do…they’ll just have to wait some more years to see if it gets up to 95% or 101% certainty…
This is interesting bec a similar situation to this NOAA thing of small numbers happened with the US’s focus only on the US. In a small area of Brownsville, TX & Matamoros, MX (adjoining cities) several decades ago there were a much higher rate of babies born without brains (anencephaly) than in the general pop. However, since the CDC only looked at the US stats (1/3 of the cases), and did not include the MX stats (2/3 of the cases), they didn’t have much statistical power to make claims. Also they told (without any studies on the issue) it was because of the corn tortillas the mothers ate probably lacking folic acid (as if Brownsville mothers were eating different tortillas from what McAllen mothers were), failing to consider the high level of pollution in that particular area that has been linked to anencephaly.
So the story goes, there are many ways to fool the public.
