You have to diagnose a problem correctly in order to have a chance at solving it.
It’s great you’re bringing data to the table but you’re overstating its validity to the assertion dramatically.
Finally I’d note you’re asserting an analysis you’ve done without providing the data, method, or any reproducibility. So while you might personally feel you’ve done an accurate job, your assertions are citing exclusively yourself, against hidden methods, making it of no more quality than a puff piece article citing research without citation that you’re arguing against.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.htm...
The analysis is easy: copy and paste the data from that link into a new text file, then write a python script that goes through it and counts the number of Cat 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 hurricanes that make landfall per year (the "Highest Saffir-Simpson U.S. Category" column), and then make the plots: I used gnuplot. You can then do fits to the data if you'd like, but the flat trend lines over the last 175 years are obvious.
I encourage you to not trust me and to do it yourself, but I'm also happy to share my script, let me know.
As far as the hurricane trajectory trend lines go, they are clearly highly stochastic: check out e.g. both the spaghetti plot predictions for various storms from previous years, and ask google for a map of where they grow (grew...) oranges in Florida.
Do actual climate scientists claim we're getting more, and stronger, hurricanes now than we did before?
Climate science is also highly political, and seems to have a big economic impact…
The general line is that climate change has probably increased the amount of rainfall associated with hurricanes, possibly the severity of hurricanes (due to sea level rise and warmer water) but there isn't good evidence that it has increased the frequency of hurricanes.
For hurricanes this seems especially problematic because the historical categorization system is based on radar-observed width of the storm. "More energy" means that the categories stay the same over time, but every category is getting worse (more rainfall, heavier/faster winds, further travel, higher damage).
As with so many statistical phenomenon, it's also a reminder to be careful what metrics you are trying to compare. Comparing just the hurricane categories to historic values may just be the exact sort of wrong metric, for these "more energy" concerns.
Now I'm confused again, because OP used data going back to 1851. We didn't have radar in the 19th century.
The original point still stands that Hurricanes are defined by only the one metric and other metrics have room to grow bigger as the category stays the same:
> The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 rating based only on a hurricane's maximum sustained wind speed. This scale does not take into account other potentially deadly hazards such as storm surge, rainfall flooding, and tornadoes.
At some point the discourse changed from “just because it’s a cold winter doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t happening” to “every hurricane/wildfire is due to climate change” and it’s ridiculous.
I honestly think a lot of young people don’t realize that while climate change is probably real our weather and variability hasn’t changed that much - yet, at least.
"Much" is one of those vague words, where it's true and false depending on your meaning.
If you live on any of the transition zones between climates, as I did growing up, it is directly visible: My experience of snow in the south coast of the UK was almost entirely in the early years of my childhood, and family photos of my older siblings show that they had even more than me. My parents had experiences of even deeper and longer cold, with ponds freezing completely solid, not just a layer of ice on the top.
I can easily imagine someone who lives in the parts of the US where all the winter urban snow photos come from, may not notice the loss of a 1-2 centimetres out of 100cm of snowfall, but when it's your last centimetre, it's much easier to spot.