That's pretty funny. On one hand you deny it, then:
(bolding mine)
The issue isn’t to just read, you must add comprehension of what the article is actually saying or it is just a bunch of words not a conveyance of understanding.
A warming climate has influences and impacts upon most, if not all, weather related events. It may not make all events stronger, more frequent or last longer, but it does have one or several of these impacts upon some events. The problem is in making specific attributions such as saying that any particular event only happened because of climate change. Weather events occur because of a confluence of factors. AGW most often influences weather events by changing the amount of energy involved in these weather events. Sometimes this translates to higher energy storms, sometimes this means that storms form or travel into regions and areas that normally do not see such storms. There are almost no single weather events that are directly and solely due to climate change, but all weather events are influenced by the factors that shape long term weather trends and patterns (aka “Climate”).
It is irrelevant to the discussion, and for exactly the reason I stated - there is no proven link, and it may have nothing to do with climate change. Aberrations happen.
The primary difference between weather and climate is somewhat similar to the one that distinguishes a slide from a movie. Weather is a snapshot at a particular location and time. Climate is an overview of large regional/planetary areas over extended time references. The smallest meaningful interval when discussing climate is three decades. You are correct in saying that extreme events (aberrations) can occur any time the confluence of generating, sustaining or compounding factors converge regardless of what the overall long-term climate trend happens to be. This said, a cooling or warming pattern of climate will result in different probabilities of those generating, sustaining and compounding factors. This is why we can say that in a warming climate we would expect to see more extensive, sustained heat waves, stronger but not necessarily more frequent, hurricanes, as well as a generally increased amount of rainfall and associated storm strength (shifting wind patterns, again partially due to the shifting of Jetstream and Hadley cell dynamics that are responsive to changing climate patterns, determine where that rain will fall and where those storms will evolve).
It is neither true nor supportable - it is a shot in the dark and it annoys the hell out of me when these "predictions" are touted as anything other than crystal-ball gazing.
As for your annoyance, it should be focused on your own lack of understanding of issues that you apparently possess many conflicting and incomplete understandings about.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm
Current Extreme Weather & Climate Change
https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/overview/
https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/download-full-pdf/
http://www.livescience.com/414-scientists-natural-disasters-common.html
Is this one of the same predictions that stated with a high degree of certainty that there would be more hurricanes and cyclones? Until successive hurricane seasons showed far fewer arising?
First, please demonstrate any "prediction" made by a climate scientist which indicated that they expected hurricane/cyclone numbers to increase every year from now on.
These are, for the most part false memes and tropes spread by science denialists, There have been some studies which indicated that increased warming may lead increasing numbers of hurricanes, the consensus has generally been that warming will lead to more intense hurricanes and expand the range of where we will see such storms sustained. Frequency is much harder to determine due to the paucity of historic and especially prehistoric data regarding hurricane occurrence. While there have been several studies indicating increased frequency as warming continues it is possible that due to changes in wind shear patterns, which are also climate dependent, there may be offsetting factors that counteract cyclonogenesis.
better link-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780869/pdf/pnas.201308732.pdf
from conclusion of referenced paper:
All of these results address only the future changes in the large scale
flow conditions leading to anomalous hurricane tracks, such as Sandy’s. These conditions will influence the probability of Sandy-like events to the extent that the probability of a tropical cyclone (or hybrid, posttropical cyclone) moving into position to be steered onshore in easterly flow remains similar to what it is today; this, in turn, is related to the overall tropical cyclone frequency in the Atlantic basin. Recent studies disagree on whether Atlantic hurricane frequencies will increase or decrease as the climate warms (20–22), and little work has been done to date on how extratropical transition frequency may also respond, it being a function of both hurricane frequency trends and the local and global environment under which it transitions. Thus, it remains uncertain how the frequency of extratropical transitioning storms will change in the future.
Finally, recent studies have suggested that accelerated warming over the Arctic (Arctic Amplification) since the mid-1990s has contributed to a slow-down of the Atlantic jet stream and increased frequencies in slow-moving, large-scale Rossby wave patterns, and that these waves are responsible for extreme weather over the United States (23–25). In particular, such a link has been used to attribute the westward steering and landfall of Sandy in part to the Arctic Amplification (26). Our analysis indicates that the proposed link between Arctic Amplification and the westward steering of tropical cyclones does not seem to be supported by the CMIP5 simulations: all models project some degree of Arctic Amplification, although most also project a decrease
in the conditions responsible for the westward steering, namely easterlies and cyclonic wave breaking.
It will be interesting to see how this paper is treated in peer review over the next few years, though it actually supports that Sandy (or more precisely Sandy's path) was attributable to current warming, it suggests that as the warming continues the model runs they made suggested that such paths might become less likely instead of more likely. Good news if their modeling ends up accurately reflecting reality.
additional reading:
Trade-off between intensity and frequency of global tropical cyclones
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2646.html
Climate forcing of unprecedented intense-hurricane activity in the last 2000 years
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000274/full
Implications of Hurricane – Sea Surface Temperature Relationship
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/53266/Paper_271_Rosowsky.pdf?sequence=1
So far, lots of those predictions about a warmer planet have been proven to be utter nonsense.
What “predictions” are you talking about and how have they been “proven” to be “utter nonsense”?
Please site and reference the scientific support for this assertion.
What analyses - statistical or otherwise - of the "facts and data" did you do, to lead to your conclusion?
