Don't be too quick to dismiss the link between global warming and storm formation. While there is no basis for blaming any single storm on global warming, there is a solid theoretical basis to believe that global warming will produce more hurricanes. That basis is simple: warmer ocean surface temperatures are unquestionably a strong factor in hurricane formation. (There is a counterargument that reduced latitudinal thermal gradients would discourage hurricane formation, but that is not well-established.)

While the statistical relationship is highly likely, the specific assignment to any single storm is not justifiable. It's rather like cancer: you can prove a statistical relationship between, say, air pollution and lung cancer, but it's impossible to say that any particular case of lung cancer was due to air pollution.

Unfortunately for your solid theoretical basis, Froblyx, there doesn't seem to be a statistical link between higher average global temperatures and an increased number of hurricanes.

When the experiment and the hypothesis don't match, what should happen?

The statistical proof of the hypothesis does not yet exist because we have not yet compiled a large enough database. There is no mismatch between data and theory; there simply isn't enough direct data yet to either confirm or deny the theory. There's a lot if indirect data, though.

Or it may be Frob that storms are fueled by the differences in temperature.

Which global warming should reduce.

BTW Frob,

What if the solar guys are right and we are due for a decline in solar output similar to what was thought to cause the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum).

I'm told the climate guys do not include such factors in their calculations.

However, I'm not totally opposed to your efforts. I think we should be doing something about the global warming happening on Mars first. Experiment on Mars first before trying anything drastic here.

The connection between climate change and hurricanes is tennuous at best and may not exist.

Which is a good reason why it is so hard to find.

"Or it may be Frob that storms are fueled by the differences in temperature."

Temperature differences between the equator and the high northern latitudes are the driving force for frontal storm systems in mid-latitudes. There's a great deal more to weather than frontal storm systems. In particular, hurricanes are NOT driven by the global circulation. They are independent heat engines driven by temperature differences between the ocean surface water and the upper troposphere -- not temperature differences between equatorial and temperate latitudes. Global warming affects the latter, but its effects on the former are known to be much lower. The overall assessment at this time is that the driving force in favor of stronger and more frequent hurricanes is greater than the inhibiting force, but our data on upper tropospheric temperatures remains uncertain enough that some reputable scientists question our certainty here. The general opinion seems to be that in fact hurricanes will intensify, but further research will be needed to be certain of this conclusion.

"What if the solar guys are right and we are due for a decline in solar output similar to what was thought to cause the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum)"

The link which you provide does not refer to any decline in solar output, it refers to a decline in sunspot numbers. There's a big difference between the two. Indeed, an examination of the graph provided of solar sunspot cycles clearly shows that the sunspot cycles have shown no secular change during the period during which global temperatures were rising. There's no linkage here.

"I'm told the climate guys do not include such factors in their calculations."

The climate guys don't bother including sunspot cycles in their models because sunspot cycles have shown no relationship to global weather, despite numerous attempts to find any such relationship.

"Experiment on Mars first before trying anything drastic here."

Actually, we're already carrying out a very drastic experiment here: releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The results of this experiment are now becoming fairly clear, and they appear to be catastrophic, with costs running into the many trillions of dollars.

You provide a link to World Climate Report; this source is second-rank; while the claims it makes are tolerable, they do not represent the general tenor of scientific opinion. A much more reputable source is RealClimate; here is their analysis of the same paper referred to by the World Climate Report. I think you'll find it a more thorough and carefully reasoned analysis. If you have questions about the underlying science, I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Steve McIntyre is first rate.

He debunked Mann and the hockey stick.

The "Real" Climate boys hung on to that one 'til the last. They may still be hanging on to it.