Climate change will likely increase the strength of weather events. Hard to say whether it increases the frequency.
Thus the answer is yes and no.
Since the climate changing is established, the question you are asking is irrelevant. The only quesition to be debated is whether there is anthropengenic climate change and if yes, how much and is the cost of doing something greater than the benefit?
Your inital response makes me skeptical that you have given this issue must real thought - but you have been at FR for a while so maybe you will surprise me.
“Since the climate changing is established”
Of course it’s been established, for the past 4.5 billion years. This is also known as ‘weather patterns’.
“The only quesition to be debated is whether there is anthropengenic climate change”
Yes, that is the focus of the debate. Since solar radiation and water vapor are the 2 most significant factors contributing towards warming the earth, I believe the answer to your question is yes (i.e. the costs proposed by the UN interplanetary council’s “research” overwhelm any theoretical benefit).
The climate has been changing for 5 billion years. What’s your POINT?
True, in the sense that the climate is always changing and always has. I don't think we have a handle on which direction it's currently going or how fast. Just witness the recent revisions to NASA's climate records in the USA and Mr. Hansen's continued efforts to cover up his methodology for calculating *past* climate - and that's just here in America!
Beyond that, the continuing documentation of the hilariously bad siting of many of the measurement stations (next to air conditioning exhaust, on an asphalt parking lot, etc.) when such stations were in the middle of a field fifty years ago renders any conclusions drawn from their measurements highly suspect. And that's just here in America - the rest of the world's records are likely in far worse shape.
So I'm not sure how one would go about making a *credible* claim (keeping in mind that repetition is not the same as credibility) that we have a good handle on even the current situation, much less future climate changes.
It's very straightforward, actually - smaller temperature differentials between the polar and equatorial regions due to warming result in less net energy for storms that feed off of atmospheric temperature differences.
I believe the climate has been changing for the last 12,000 years since the last Ice Age...getting warmer (with a few mini ice ages exceptions due to solar minimums or big volcano eruptions) all that time.
No SUV’s around till the last decade.
My great grandfather wrote a letter to his brother in law during the Civil War when he was in the Grand Army of the Republic, and reported that the temperature that July, 1864, outside of Atlanta, Georgia, was 110 degrees in the shade.
A few decades ago everyone was agreeing we were entering another Ice Age and global cooling was the cry of the hysterical. Some regulations on sulfur emissions changed the picture. So maybe we should go back to putting sulfur in the air to tip the warming back to cooling?