How does a Tropical Storm become a Cat 5 Hurricane in less than 9 hours?

Sorry, but your view of Heartland is not of interest.
I am accustomed to resistance from low information posters.
“In science, as in the playing card experiment, novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

Read further? I read the entire article straight away. That’s how I knew it didn’t support your position. That’s how I knew “recorded” is meaningless in the context. Just because this generation hasn’t “seen” this before isn’t an argument.

I don’t know about geological research on tropical cyclones in your part of the world. But cat 4/5 impacts on the US are not comparable yet to such impacts nearly 2000 years ago. Of course we didn’t “see” them. But it means an argument that increases in cat 4/5 hurricanes here is due to AGW isn’t particularly sound. Yet, just like your link, news articles here always leave out those pertinent facts. I’m not saying hurricane activity in the context of climate change should be ignored. I’m saying ALL the facts should be reported, not just bits and pieces that support an agenda. That’s not good journalism.

This isn’t about scoring points. It’s about arguments with a foundation in evidence. Quite often you post citations that actually support the position opposite of yours.

I care about the environment as much or more than anyone here because it impacts me directly as well as indirectly. So I care very much about “environmentalism” being credible. I don’t want the demographic that proposes to care about the environment to have a reputation of deceit and denial of science. If we expect to get folks on board with actually improving the environment we have to accurately identify the problems and offer logical science based solutions. We also have to acknowledge the opportunities warming offers to further benefit humanity.

We can’t criticize folks for saying global warming is a fraud because it snowed or was cold for a week and then post some link that supposedly is evidence a record date of hurricane formation and development is proof warming is occurring. Especially when the link doesn’t even say that, but the opposite of that.

Maybe this is about “scoring points” for you. Not to me. It’s about saving what little credibility the environmental movement has left. It’s about actually educating people on the facts. It’s about expanding people’s knowledge of climate science so they can make decisions based on complete information, not just information one group wants them to see.

Yes, warming climate affects hurricanes. As does particulate pollution. And effects from both warming and particulate pollution have “positive” and “negative” effects on humans globally. Why not acknowledge this and work toward mitigating the negative and leveraging the positive instead of just making arguments by news headlines that don’t benefit anyone and actually destroy the credibility of environmentalism in general?

You say the linked article is good journalism. Well it’s better than some. But it misled you. Until I encouraged you to read it you believed it presented an event that was an example of direct climate change—some kind of answer to the question the other poster posed.

Big, complicated issues like environmentalism aren’t understood or solved by sensational headlines.

 

NCAR has weighed in. That should wrap up this discussion.
NCAR Study: Otis Rapid Hurricane Intensification was Not Driven by Climate Change
Anthony Watts
Forecasting these “rapid intensification” events is a challenge, in part because we do not fully understand the science behind rapid intensification. . . . .

 

Another climate alarmist myth debunked.
Natural Disasters Are Not Increasing — Really
Kip Hansen
The fact that natural disasters are not increasing and not killing more people – due to climate change or any other fanciful cause — has once more been firmly entered…