So then your link is useless and not supported by all of the relevant data, thanks for admitting it!

You shouldn’t rely on less than complete information, which only backs a few decades, as it doesn’t come close to supporting your premise.

Neither the table you cite, nor the table bthewolf cites are adequate records upon which to base any conclusions about the frequency trend in Atlantic Basin TC’s. 

The table bthewolf cites is only of landfalling tropical cyclones, which obviously misses all those TC’s which don’t make landfall.  The table you cite is a progressive cumulative data set which fails to show year by year (or even decade by decade) data arrayed over time.

I would liken the table you cite to a frequency table of coin flips.  While over a short measured period, say 10 flips, you might have a huge disparity between the number of heads and the number of tails.  But as you add more observations, you’ll find that the ratio of heads to tails will become 1:1  Any comparison between a particular subset of flips to the overall average of flips is relatively meaningless.  Table 7 shows that as you include more years into the data, the averages decline, but that in and of itself is insufficient to show a trend

In order to assess the hypothesis that MMCC is causing more hurricanes, you’d have to have a data set containing frequencies of TC’s in the Atlantic basin by year, and graph that out over time.  But you’d also have to figure a way to remove the bias introduced by better observational techniques which have occurred over time.  Prior to 1960, we had to rely entirely on shore-based and ship-based observations to detect and monitor TC’s.  After 1960, we could easily detect and monitor all TC’s via satellite observation.  A good analogy is the rapid rise in cancer rates as better diagnostic methods and techniques became available.  Prior to possessing the ability to diagnose some forms of cancer, the only way we detected them was through autopsy.  We have little to no idea of actual rates prior to the advent of modern diagnostics.

Here’s a link to an Ams paper published by a group led by two Noaa scientists. 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3034.1

If I might, I’ll quote the Abstract in it’s entirety (emphasis added):

Records of Atlantic basin tropical cyclones (TCs) since the late
nineteenth century indicate a very large upward trend in storm
frequency. This increase in documented TCs has been previously
interpreted as resulting from anthropogenic climate change. However,
improvements in observing and recording practices provide an alternative
interpretation for these changes: recent studies suggest that the
number of potentially missed TCs is sufficient to explain a large part
of the recorded increase in TC counts. This study explores the influence
of another factor—TC duration—on observed changes in TC frequency,
using a widely used Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT). It is found
that the occurrence of short-lived storms (duration of 2 days or less)
in the database has increased dramatically, from less than one per year
in the late nineteenth–early twentieth century to about five per year
since about 2000, while medium- to long-lived storms have increased
little, if at all. Thus, the previously documented increase in total TC
frequency since the late nineteenth century in the database is primarily
due to an increase in very short-lived TCs.

The authors also
undertake a sampling study based upon the distribution of ship
observations, which provides quantitative estimates of the frequency of
missed TCs, focusing just on the moderate to long-lived systems with
durations exceeding 2 days in the raw HURDAT. Upon adding the estimated
numbers of missed TCs, the time series of moderate to long-lived
Atlantic TCs show substantial multidecadal variability, but neither time
series exhibits a significant trend since the late nineteenth century,
with a nominal decrease in the adjusted time series.

Thus,
to understand the source of the century-scale increase in Atlantic TC
counts in HURDAT, one must explain the relatively monotonic increase in
very short-duration storms since the late nineteenth century. While it
is possible that the recorded increase in short-duration TCs represents a
real climate signal, the authors consider that it is more plausible
that the increase arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and
quality of observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques.
These have allowed National Hurricane Center forecasters to better
monitor and detect initial TC formation, and thus incorporate increasing
numbers of very short-lived systems into the TC database.

In other words, the counts of TC frequency have, in the modern age, included storms which would not have been detected earlier either because of where they occurred or how long they lasted.

Not so stupid that I’d take anyone’s word for it. And I don’t follow Bachmann around like a puppy, what_a_tard. So asking for a source isn’t stupid!