Great post! While the specific conditions that created the high pressure ‘holding pattern’ that kept the storm from moving on like normal were anomalistic as opposed to their being the result of climate change (at least that we can prove) the ferocity of the storm is something else again. I reassert that the warmed ocean waters will continue to add energy to future storms and increase the amount of moisture that they will precipitate. More powerful storms with increased rainfall as the norm.
While the theoretical in science is in part exploratory and speculative, the practice of science is by definition driven to prove concretely what are basically incontrovertible facts. We then use these facts to prove other facts and processes which are then added to the species sum of knowledge. Therein lies the rub! How do we define a fact? Worse how do we prove a fact is incontrovertible rather than being merely consistent with a side helping of anomalies? Even worse than that is that we must use language (a limited and often unwieldy tool) to describe those facts in specific detail. We do a good job … well sort of!
Humans love comparative estimates based on context while science defines everything with specifics including their overall context. Language is the question - How hot is hot? The answer doesn’t exist except in context. The sun is hot if space is cold. Yadda yadda. Prove each statement first before using them.
‘In long’ (we say ‘in short’ when it is short …ahem!) … The oceans were warmer and will stay warm. That adds more energy to the equation. Adding anything creates cause and effect. Some would say that this added warmth cannot be proven as a result of climate change.
In short… who are they kidding!
The question that should be asked but never is concerning climate change is >>> Can climate still remain the same when we change the factors that create climate?
They say ‘you can’t prove that climate change is caused by human activity’ whereas the real question is …that given the scale and scope of human activity how could you even try to prove that it has no effect on climate? Oddly enough we have no trouble defining the heat island effect for large cities. How many people are 7 1/2 billions in terms of carbon produced? How could such an immense amount of carbon added to the atmosphere have no effect on climate?
How warm are the oceans?
Ans. Too warm for storms to remain like they used to be.
Hint: Consider the monsoons that flooded SE Asia notably Bengaladesh. Warm oceans.