If there is a reduced temperature difference, then there is increased convective transport. That convective transport is also known as “wind”, so reduced temperature differences implies increased wind.

I’m a Masters student in physics, therefore I really had to learn what science means.

The second statement does not follow from the first – look at the people with degrees in science who deny evolution, relativity, and (like you) climate change. Mastering mechanics does not equal understanding.

And that’s exactly the problem with making easily skewered statements implying that global warming is somehow responsible. Humor aside, this is Science, yes? If so, either we have evidence or we don’t. We certainly have evidence that deniers as a group lack humor – why give them ammunition?

Tropical storms including hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific are probably more frequent, the stronger ones stronger, and among these, more readily fed with deeper warm temperatures causing larger storms to be even larger as hapened with Katrina and Haiyan, a phenomenon we can expect to become fairly common given the warming oceans.

Those are two examples of global warming directly contributing to greater storminess.

The shift in jet stream patterns caused by the change in gradient to which you refer causes greater north and south migration of air masses, as you suggest, and larger gradients; it also causes more blocking. Blocking can cause rainfall (enhanced because of warming causing more evaporation as you acknowledge earlier) to happen in compressed space. That rainfall that caused the colorado flooding this year should have been spread across a much larger region but was not because of blocking and 20 years ago would have been less wet (because of evaporation).

The only thing about all this that could be thought of as having been less obvious at one time because of a lack of data to feed into the models is the Arctic Amplification effects on jet stream dynamics, since the Arctic seems to have warmed faster and to a greater degree than people may have been expecting a decade ago. The rest of it is expected, and obvious.

There are some less obvious, more unknown things. The exact nature of changes in wind patterns affecting storm formation is not fully understood yet. I don’t think we totally get changes in seasonality of stormy periods, but that they might length or shift isn’t especially surprising.

I am in frequent communication with both meteorologists and climate scientists and they do not say what you are saying about what is obvious or unexpected, for the most part.

Instead we are seeing a weaker but more meandering jetstream, allowing streams of air to move further north or south than used to be the case. This causes larger local gradients.

The overall thermal content of the air actually drives, in part, density differences. Four or five percent is a HUGE number at the tail end of the distribution. The increase of wild weather on a warming planet is intuitively obvious. But yes, it is complicated.

Its more complicated than ‘more energy in the atmosphere equals stronger storms’. Storms are driven by atmospheric density differences, not by the overall thermal content of the air. True we have more working fluid (atmospheric moisture), but thats only up a four or five percent, and the difference from say fifty years ago is far less than the seasonal variation at temperate latitudes. So the increase in wild weather on a warming planet isn’t intuitively obvious, it is due to subtle effects that climatologists are struggling to come to grips with.