"Scott" wrote in message
...
Bill Habr wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...

Bill Habr wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...


The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was

rather


good at record-keeping back then.



Why didn't they look at before 1970?

Say go back to 1950 or 1960?

Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and

wouldn't

show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from high to
low

and

back to high.

Or maybe they couldn't find satellite data from back in the 1950s.


Scott



So are you saying that presence of satellite data would show less
activity?

If not you are making my point stronger.

I'm not sure what you mean.

It was my understanding that the study used satellite
data. How many weather satellites were flying the 1950s?

Scott

Question:

Leavingout all data from before 1970 enhances the study?


My point is that by using a period of time of below normal activity the
study skews.
Example:
Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, North Atlantic Hurricane
Activity.

1950 to 1971 inclusive (22 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 11

Normal 7

Below normal 4


1972 to 1994 inclusive (22 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 3

Normal 7

Below normal 12


1950 to 1994 inclusive (44 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 14

Normal 14

Below normal 16