Now pullup the tracks of the 2005 storms. At least 9 of them simply petered out over the Atlantic, and usually not in major shipping lanes.In 1933 there may have been as many.To suggest that there is no sampling error is silly. A significant part of the trend is better detection. We should compare with 1933 or 1887 for how many made landfall. Murray
I think you considerably underestimate Victorian efficiency and the extent of commerce. The Beaufort wind scale was developed in 1805. The portable aneroid barometer was invented in 1843. Systematic weather forecasting began in the 1860s (pioneered in the US). The very first hurricane warning in 1873 was of a storm that never made land.

The waters between the US and Europe have been covered with shipping for centuries. I am from the Liverpool area, and my mother, grandfather, and great-grandfather all worked in the shipping industry. Record keeping was generally excellent by the last decades of the 19th century - passenger lists, crew lists, bills of lading, all significant events during the voyage were logged. Trade between European ports (especially Liverpool) and the US South and Carribean (hurricane country) was extremely extensive because those trade links became established during the slave trade, which was extensively facilitated by Liverpool ships. Sugar, tobacco, cotton both were major imports to Europe from the South and Carribean, and manufactured goods were extensively exported (Liverpool was known as the Cast Iron Shore at one period).

I would be surprised if many major Atlantic storms were not noted and recorded by Victorian society (let alone twentieth century society). And while I don't agree with NOAA's current official position on the cause of hurricane upsurge (which I assume has to pass muster with their political bosses), I do think they've made very extensive and thorough efforts to find and document past hurricanes. I think the low years are low because the basin was quiet, not because of missing data. Here's an example of the kind of data that they has been able to reconstruct for the period of interest (tracks for the first year of the LA Times map). You can see there's coverage of a number of storms that did not make land - even tropical depressions.

Here's 1884 - a quiet year in which nonetheless, two of the known tracks don't make landfall.

And here's 1887, the busiest year in the 19th century.

Sorry for the long comment, but I think it's a very important point.

Thank you.  Another point is that since the age of steam, ships have gone pretty much everywhere.  There is no longer a need to follow the trade winds.  Aircraft and satellites are nice, but by no means necessary to document storms.
See http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Add 3 for 2005, and the decade is on track to equal 1931-1940. The eye of Ophelia never quite made land. It probably doesn't mean anything but taking easy 50 year intervals we find 1851-1900 97, 1901-1950 95 and 1951-2000 72.
For the past to be fully represented, there had to be a ship present at the time and in the location when a storm hit max intensity, every time. Not bloody likely. Surely there were hurricanes that only got reported as tropical storms, and tropical storms that got reported as depressions. Also some storms are very short lived. Gaston, last year was only about 3 days, and in times past such a brief hurricane could well have been entirely missed if it didn't come ashore, or came ashore in a sparsely populated area.
To compare with global warming one has to take a world wide view. I have read, but don't have the reference now, that globally there has been no increase in frequency, and that 2005 was not remarkable. Also I read that the Bay of Bengal is always warmer than the GOM this year, but does not produce more intense storms.
I don't think we know enough to draw any conclusions.Murray