Which would be a lot more meaningful if weren't also making unscientifc, unsound, unjustified arguments
try again
your argument dismissed the stretch of low activity because certain storms were costly
cost has absolutely zero fucking relationship to proof one way or another. it is a complete red herring
you later try make some arguments about the strength of the storms, whatever, you should have never mentioned cost in the first place because it is a spurious argument.
Here's my points.
First man made climate change is already proven. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. Our impact has been know to within an order of magnitude since at least the 80's.
Second I've been addressing this comment
so, record-setting setting stretch of low hurricane activity = proof of global warming
also, high hurricane activity = proof of global warming
This is an unsound unsupported unjustified straw man argument.
Despite what the denier blogs have to say there has been no record setting stretch of low hurricane activity. At least not where
global warming is concerned.
It's fairly obvious from the plot that the number of named storms is maybe slightly above average over the last decade.
The argument put forth by mainstream climate science is that hurricane intensity will increase not necessarily frequency:
From IPCC AR4
"Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results. "
Even during this "record setting stretch of low activity" four top ten damaging storms occurred, Ike, Sandy, Irene, and Matthew. All peaked at cat 3 or above. Ike in fact was a single mph of being a cat 3 when it hit the US. It had a hurricane strength wind field larger than Irma and a storm surge potential higher than Irma even as a 2.
The low activity was only in reference to no cat 3 or higher storms hitting the US. Yet those 4 storms caused $140billion dollars. While more coastal development drives hurricane costs so do the strength of the storms. Each of those four storms was larger than their wind speeds would have you believe.
Why mention costs? Because this thread is in part about the politics and policy of climate change. Theory predicts more intense hurricanes. More intense hurricanes do more damage. More coastal development multiplies the damage further. The costs then become something maybe worth mitigating or preventing.
Finally each and every storm can be investigated to determine if climate change played a roll in its intensity. Hurricanes are heat engines. The more OHC the more fuel for when atmospheric conditions allow intensification.
OHC has been going up for 40 years due to climate change.
These storms are passing over waters that are warmer than they otherwise would have been.
So it's laughable that you opine that an individual weather event can't be used to directly show the impact of climate change.
Stop making dumb climate denier arguements.