Funny. I think it's important to understand the meta story.
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.
"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.