"James" wrote in :


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
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.

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.
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.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much
comparing the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

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

This page compares everything. From WWII onwards there were hurricane
hunters flying into the eyes of hurricanes. Before that there were the
decades of 1930-145 where commercial passenger flights connected all the
islands with all the mainlands. As big as hurricanes are, there is no
possibility any were missed during this period. Barnstormers were trained
for WWI and there was private flyers and airmail runs from 1918 through
1930 island hopping to and fro between North and South America.


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.