The recent NBC News article, “Climate change is increasing the risk of rapidly intensifying storms. Hurricane Erin is the latest example,” and a similar story published by CNN, are yet additional instances of media hyperbole overshadowing scientific nuance. [emphasis, links added]
The claim that climate change is driving the increasingly frequent rapid intensification of hurricanes is unproven and probably flat wrong.
NBC’s story opens dramatically:
Hurricane Erin strengthened back into a Category 4 behemoth over the weekend, the latest shift in what has been a remarkably fast-changing storm.
The hurricane’s behavior in recent days makes it one of the fastest-strengthening Atlantic hurricanes on record, and yet another indication that climate change is increasing the risk of rapidly intensifying storms.
This framing relies not on a robust dataset or a careful review of historical hurricane behavior, but on a shallow reading of recent high-profile storms and a generous dose of conjecture.
The article immediately jumps to the assertion that a single hurricane—Erin—is somehow emblematic of a global, climate-driven trend.
The problem? We simply don’t have the quality or length of observational data required to make such sweeping conclusions.
There is no single, universal definition of “rapid intensification.” Discussions of it are of very recent vintage. When many speak of rapid “intensification” (RI), they define it as an increase in sustained wind speeds of at least 35 mph in 24 hours.
This is a relatively new entrant in the hurricane lexicon, as seen in the figure below from Google nGram tracker:
Before satellite monitoring in the late 1970s, we had only the vaguest idea about the inner workings of tropical cyclones, especially those that stayed at sea.
Before that, storm intensification was gauged largely by ship reports, land-based observations, and post-storm forensics. How many storms rapidly intensified in the pre-satellite era?
The honest answer is: we’ll never know because the data isn’t there.
As Climate at a Glance points out, “Reliable satellite data on global hurricanes only goes back to about 1980.”
Any attempt to compare the frequency or intensity of RI events today to pre-satellite decades is, at best, based on suppositions, assumptions, and guesses about past hurricane wind speeds and development. Pure speculation.
Only modern storm tracking allows us to monitor, record, and report every wiggle and wobble in storm strength that would have gone unrecorded in previous generations. Comparing today’s RI frequency to 1970, 1960, or earlier is like comparing high-resolution digital photos to blurry Polaroids or even woodcut etchings and then claiming the subject has suddenly grown new features.
NBC News references a 2023 study that claims, “tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean were around 29% more likely to undergo rapid intensification from 2001 to 2020, compared to 1971 to 1990.” This sounds concerning, until you realize the gaping chasm in data quality between those eras.
Hurricane tracking and wind speed and pressure monitoring before the development and deployment of hurricane aircraft were spotty at best.
It was largely made up of guesswork or readings from the odd ship that crossed paths with a storm, unless or until a storm made landfall, and particularly, landfall at locations with what was then the state-of-the-art weather data devices.
Any statistical analysis that straddles the pre- and post-satellite eras is skating on extremely thin ice.
Hurricane aircraft were a giant leap forward, but even then, the awareness of hurricanes could be spotty, with many small storms developing and dying distant from land, being unrecorded or reported.
Reaching storms far from land was limited and a drain on resources, and the equipment, rudimentary compared to modern equipment. Satellites revolutionized hurricane tracking in the 1980s. As a result, any statistical analysis that straddles the pre- and post-satellite eras is skating on extremely thin ice.
“From my read of the discussion among scientists, the IPCC report, and the DOE report, my opinion is that technological advancement in recent decades-particularly as it pertains to the capabilities of the Hurricane Hunters, makes it difficult to say definitive things about trends in rapid intensification … [t]his is especially so because these things happen out at sea.,” writes Jessica Wienkle, Ph.D., in an analysis of rapid intensification, subtitled, “Our technologies have come a long way!”
“One cannot discredit the first half of the hurricane record for data quality issues and then proclaim definitive things about the latter half of the record because of its high data quality,” Wienkle continues.
Difficulties in comparing past with present hurricane records and trends aside, NBC fails to mention that NOAA’s data shows no significant upward trend in either the frequency or intensity of all major Atlantic hurricanes since reliable satellite measurements began.
Also, when global hurricane data is examined, there is even less evidence for a trend.
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) states plainly: “There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in TC [tropical cyclone] frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in observational capabilities.”
What about the record books? Even a cursory glance at NOAA’s historical hurricane database shows that the strongest, most rapidly intensifying hurricanes are not a modern phenomenon.
Did you know?
Of the top 15 strongest hurricanes to make landfall in the Contiguous U.S., ten of them struck before 1975. Of that subset, seven made landfall either in or before the year 1935. 🎯
Intensity rankings are by barometric pressure at landfall (historically, the most… pic.twitter.com/O8bNXYeQJ6
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) August 8, 2025
Take Hurricane Wilma (2005), which intensified by 100 mph in 30 hours, or Hurricane Camille (1969), which made landfall as a Category 5 long before the climate panic set in.
When you factor in measurement improvements and detection bias, the supposed “trend” toward more rapid intensification evaporates.
NBC News leans heavily on the notion that warmer sea surface temperatures are the “key ingredient” for rapid intensification. But hurricanes are products of many factors—wind shear, atmospheric moisture, ocean heat content, and even dust from the Sahara Desert.
Some years, all the ingredients line up. Other years, despite warm water, storms simply fail to materialize or intensify.
Historical hurricane records are rife with examples of natural variability overwhelming any hypothetical climate “signal.” As recently as 2013, forecasters predicted a blockbuster season due to high sea surface temperatures, but reality delivered a below-average hurricane season.
If warm water were the sole driver, the hurricane trend would be a simple upward slope. Instead, the record is erratic, with decades of fewer landfalls and weak seasons mixed among the headline storms.
The NBC article finally admits, in an aside: “the process of rapid intensification remains difficult to forecast… understanding how it will happen for specific storms—and when—will require more research.” You don’t say!
NBC’s climate reporting reminds me of an early Saturday Night Live character, Emily Litella: Famous for building up a huge story and working herself up into a tizzy based on a simple misunderstanding of what someone had said in an editorial or story.
Once an anchor explained that Litella had misheard or misunderstood the subject she was responding to, she would famously say, “Oh, that’s very different. Never Mind!”
NBC misunderstands what the conclusions one can draw about hurricanes from an all-things-considered weighing of the limited available evidence, blows up an alarming story about worsening rapid intensification, and then, in a “never mind,” moment, admits the process is a mystery and “requires more research.”
In the end, what NBC News is serving up isn’t journalism—it’s a dish best described as “climate panic stew.” Take a dash of selective data, toss in a pinch of correlation without causation, and garnish with dramatic satellite imagery, and you’ve got a complete, ready-to-consume media dish.
But what you won’t find in their recipe is skepticism, context, or any recognition of the limitations in hurricane observation and attribution science. That’s not science reporting; that’s tall tale spinning for political purposes.
Until NBC News is interested in reporting real science, with all its uncertainties and caveats, their climate reporting will remain as stormy as the hurricanes they claim to understand.
Read more at Climate Realism
