There is also plenty of Aviation Related Atmospheric data sets that go back further on the weather readings from Aircraft that get automatically recorded and fed into the weather modeling data sets and that info goes back further as does the Atmospheric weather balloons and those soundings!
You did a good job with the limited statistics of your extremely limited sampling of the Atmospheric Historical record but that limited sampling lacks any finer granularity there compared to what the professionals have worked through in their research.
And in no way should anyone not go back as far as possible for any datasets including tree rings and other indirect methods of sampling further back in the historical records there. And where did I actually say that one should not go back as far as possible for as much data as possible. I just stated that the datasets get less detailed the further back one goes but that still comprises more data than you have made use of to come to your conclusion!
"And in no way should anyone not go back as far as possible for any datasets including tree rings and other indirect methods of sampling further back in the historical records there."
Great! So you have to reject scant non-global thermometer data prior to the satellite age.
"but that still comprises more data than you have made use of to come to your conclusion!"
No! There is NO more data for atlantic hurricanes. If there was, NOAA would have it.
"Those people are claiming that one thing increases. Well, wouldn't it be better to measure another thing? It would! […] So we see that the thing I want to measure shows no change. This proves that those people are wrong and alarmist."
The trick you use is point 15 in Schopenhauer's book about dirty rhetorical tricks.
What are the motives of people who claim 4 hurricanes each lasting 3 hours MUST BE more important than 3 hurricanes each lasting 4 hours?
The potential damage may actually result more from duration than frequency.
Perhaps it's worth asking if the initial claim is a dirty rhetorical trick?
When it comes to global accumulated cyclone energy, it is no trend/slightly decreasing.
Alarmists predicted it would go up decades ago. They were wrong.
Now they just cherrypick subfacts beneath that grand fact. Look at this location! Look at this time slice! See? See?
It's pathetic.
No scientists have complete data to create an ACE prior to the 1970s.
I made do with what was available and I did a good job.
Scientists claim that peak intensity will go up. Well I have peak low pressure data ...