"Roger Coppock" wrote in
ups.com:

James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the
70s, many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

You have previously demonstrated that you are historically illiterate. I've appended below the stock rebuttal
to Landsea. James is claiming before the 1970s, including 4 full decades of airmail and commercial
passenger flights between the islands and all points North, South, East, and West. There isn't a possibility of
missing a single tropical cyclone since shortly after Linbergh's flight to Paris.

There was no uptick, no increase in storm reports during the all-eyes-pealed Civil War, Spanish-American
War, WWI or the opening of the Panama Canal.

Yopur methodology is flawed and you were slovenly about your examination of the data. You came with a
fixed paradigm which was flawed then and is flawed still today in trying to shoehorn data into meeting you
preconceptions.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.

The models are built on the base of flawed paradigms. GIGO. They have never done energy flow accounting,
and as recently as a couple of months ago one famous modeller was in this forum asking about where to get
data on total energy throughput.


I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.

No. I think you will die and be gone before then. Don't use the remainder of your time spreading FUD.

There is nithing hard to measuring intensity. They use dropsondes to get barometric readings. These are the
official means to determine hurricane intesity. The basic barometer itself is a simple instrument invented
before hurricane records began. The official HURDAT record omits barometric data for most early storms, but
the raw data on the same website has it for many ancient storms.

Naturally nobody wants to be caught at sea by a hurricane, but before radio they were caught by surprise.
Many ships had barometers.

------------------------
http://www.hurricanehunters.com/history2.htm
A History of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron

Hurricane Hunting started on a dare in the middle of World War II, when Lt Col Joe Duckworth took an AT-6
Texan training aircraft into the eye of a hurricane. Our squadron traces its heritage back over 50 years, to
the 3rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, Air Route, Medium on August 7, 1944. From the very beginning,
the squadron began a globe-trotting tradition, with aircraft spread from Canada to Florida to the Azores.

B-17 FLYING FORTRESS

The Fortress was the most often requested aircraft for weather reconnaissance in WWII. In Sept. 1945, the
53rd was the first squadron to intentionally fly a B-17 into a hurricane. Hurricanes soon became their primary
mission, and henceforth the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron has been known as the Hurricane
Hunters.

The scattering of the squadron's planes around the globe was required by the very nature of the
responsibilities assigned to the organization. During this early period, the unit scouted the weather over large
geographical areas: remember, this was in the days before satellites! Day after day, squadron planes
collected data which were transmitted to weather stations for use in preparing forecasts required for the Air
Force and the U.S. Weather Bureau.
------------------------




Chris Landsea spent years of his life pouring over the HURDAT database and old records trying to locate
evidences of storms that were somehow skipped from being included in the official record. Thanks to him
and his team an average of one or two storms were added to the records from antique sources including
journals and diaries from scientists who kept good daily weather records, newspaper reports from captains
who encountered storms at sea, from army coastal forts who took twice daily weather readings, from ship
captain's logs preserved in local state historical societies and museums. He's not the only one who made the
effort to make sure nothing possibly was omitted.

The record we have is the OFFICIAL record. There is no better private records available for love or money.
There is no other source for the best data. Landsea himself made sure of that.

From the Gold Rush of 1849 the pathways of hurricanes were thick with sailing ships traversing the same
seas, using the same steering winds that hurricanes use. BY 1849 there were regularly scheduled weekly
sailings of steam paddlewheeler mail & supply ships from Boston, NYC & Washington DC to the gold fields of
California. The official records starts 2 years after the seas were crowded by both sailing and steam vessels.

One faster route to the Gold Fields was via Panama, where people debarked on the east, hiked 50 miles to
the west, and embarked if a ship passing had room. We have complete coverage of every possible point on
the seas where a hurricane could exist. Most hurricanes at sea were reported by six or more ships. The
sailors used actual "knots" as a measure of speed, not as a metaphor for a measure of speed. They were
lifelong trained in gauging wind speeds and ship motion, not like the loss-of-skills of today's seamen might
cause you to judge the elders.

Barometers are the most precise measurement of hurricane strength today, superior by far to satellite
estimations. Barometers were standard equipment early, well before the official records begin. Although the
"official" record at HURDAT does not put barometric readings in the database for early era storms, the raw
data at the same website includes barameter readings from many obvservers even very early in the record
period. You have to ask Landsea why the raw data barometer records are left out of the official record he
helped create.

Shortly after the record begins we have the Civil War, with coastal blockades of picket ship fleets and
smuggler blockade runners. Nobody can effectively argue that that the Atlantic and Gulf were not fully
monitored so that not one single storm could pass uncounted.

By 1909 the Panama Canal was opened with a non-stop stream of traffic through in both directions from all
points to all points. The Carribean was also heavily monitored during the year of the Spanish-American War
as well as the south Atlantic and Gulf.

The years of the Civil War, Spanish-American War, the opening of the Panama Canal, World War I, years
with all eyes pealed for enemy fleets and cruisers looking for action ought to have produced an strong uptick
of "found" storms that might otherwise have been missed in the counts. That is not true in the actual record.
More eyes did not produce higher counts. The counts reflect the actual, not the hypothetical, cyclone
activity.

Look HE http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html

Explain how the counting got so good in certain early years and was so bad in years just before and after
peak years in the record? That is the burden of proof required on those who accuse the elders of shoddy
record keeping. Neither you, nor Landsea have met your burden of proof and you slurs and insults on the
integrity of the early record keepers is rejected summarily until you meet your burden of proof.

1914 was a WAR year. All eyes open for enemy. The US fleet was in Tampico, Mexico, fighting for
Satandard Oil companies (as usual) from April of that year. By August, Europe was at war, with fleets
scrambling to stock in strategic supplies. Explain how storms got missed in 1914? How much storm activity
was there in 1914? There was exactly ONE tropical Storm and ZERO hurricanes. This record is not because
there were no satellites on duty, but because the world was different then, the climate was different then.

Accept reality and deal with it like an adult -- we are discussing the social course of human survival on the
planet, not trying to win points in a debate.

Landsea does not have better data than I have -- we both have the same data. Landsea has less
conscience than I have and he has been an associate with discredited science fraudsters. Landsea has
diminishing credibility and may end his career being called a crook if he doesn't stop trying to spread
disinformation.