by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
This story is an unusual one, because virtually nothing, and I mean nothing is being said about it. There was, of course, the usual flurry of news in the media, and then the story seems to fade from front-and-center as our attention is made to lurch from one crisis to another: the Ukraine, Maui, Israel and Hamas… somewhere in that chain there was a tropical storm called “Otis” and its sudden and dramatic surge into a hurricane, and it plowed into the popular Mexican resort city of Acapulco… then, not a peep. I received the following story of D.J. and there is something – in fact, a things – that caught my eye and that, if true, argue that “something” is going on and it’s not good:
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
It’s that top statement on this website that disturbs:
On October 25th, at 1am, Acapulco was hit by a massive hurricane that erupted into a Category 5 from a tropical storm in a matter of hours and hit Acapulco with a population of nearly 1 million people in the middle of the night with no warning from the media.
National Public Radio seems to confirm that the hurricane dramatically intensified as it drew near the city from a category 3 to a category 5 storm, as noted by CNN:
Hurricane Otis unleashes massive flooding in Acapulco and triggers landslides
Hurricane Otis’ Category 5 ‘nightmare scenario’ knocks out all communications in Acapulco, Mexico
In the CNN version we’re being given the usual “thermal” explanation for such an intensification of the storm: it picked up energy from the warm waters of the ocean. Interestingly enough, in the CNN version, the storm was predicted to intensify, but even here the article relates that the reality exceeded the predictions:
Otis was not forecast to become a hurricane until early Tuesday morning, a little more than 24 hours before it would make its unprecedented Category 5 landfall.
A hurricane watch was issued Monday afternoon for Acapulco and surrounding parts of the coast. The forecast was on the “high side of pretty much all the intensity guidance” that forecasters get from computer models, Michael Brennan, director of the National Hurricane Center, told CNN.
But the storm was still severely underestimated. Brennan said the satellite data and hurricane models were underplaying its current intensity and how strong it could potentially get.
Disruptive high-level winds were expected to keep a lid on Otis’ strength. But it was a small storm, which made it much more prone to big changes in intensity. As Tuesday progressed, and the storm began to move over incredibly warm water near the coast, it became clear environmental conditions weren’t playing out as forecasters expected and Otis was not going to be held back.
So the bottom line here is that the models, and the reality, varied immensely, and as the article goes on to relate (after the usual bow to the “this-all-happened-because-of-climate-change” narrative) that weather tracking aircraft flown into the storm showed that it was intensifying much more rapidly and strongly than the models predicted. The article then gives the following timeline of how rapid that intensification was:
3 a.m. – 65 mph tropical storm: The NHC first forecasts a hurricane and says there is “about 1 in 4 chance of rapid strengthening during the next 24 hours.”
9 a.m. – 70 mph tropical storm: The NHC ups its intensity forecast slightly and notes some forecast models show “a greater than normal probability” of rapid intensification and “further upward adjustments to the intensity forecast are possible later today.”
Noon – 80 mph Category 1 hurricane: The hurricane tracks into very warm water off the Mexico coast and begins rapidly intensifying, aided by moist air and favorable high level winds, two ingredients that allow cyclones to grow stronger. “Further strengthening [is] likely until landfall,” the hurricane center warns.
1 to 2 p.m. – Hurricane Hunters fly through the eye of Otis, discovering it was much stronger than satellites had estimated.
3 p.m. – 125 mph Category 3 hurricane: The NHC dramatically alters its intensity forecast and calls for an “extremely dangerous” Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph shortly before landfall.
6 p.m. – 145 mph Category 4 hurricane: The NHC warns “…there are no signs of this explosive intensification stopping,” and forecasts Otis to reach Category 5 for the first time.
9 p.m. – 160 mph Category 5 hurricane: The hurricane center warns “a nightmare scenario is unfolding for southern Mexico this evening with rapidly intensifying Otis approaching the coastline.”
12:25 a.m. Wednesday – Otis makes landfall as a 165 mph, Category 5 hurricane.
And after this we get more of the climate change narrative nonsense:
The storm’s rapid intensification is a symptom of the human-caused climate crisis, scientists say – and one that is becoming more frequent.
And after this comes the “thermal model” explanation: too much heat in the ocean contributed to the storm’s intensification:
Scientists have defined rapid intensification as a wind speed increase of at least 35 mph in 24 hours or less, generally requiring significant ocean heat.
More than 90% of warming around the globe over the past 50 years has taken place in the oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, El Niño is growing in the Pacific this year, driving ocean temperatures even higher.
Now, don’t get me wrong nor misunderstand me: I am not saying that such storms have no thermal component. They obviously do. What I’m wondering, however, is exactly what human activity specifically contributed to the 31 degree Celsius patch of water off the coast of Mexico that was in the path of the storm? It certainly wasn’t massive cattle-ranching and underwater bovine flatulence? If the warm was was somehow the result of the growing vulcanism in the Pacific “ring of fire” I can believe that, but how then are humans responsible for that? In short, the CNN article is advancing the usual narrative that accompanies such events, and doing so with no explanation nor connective process of reason. It simply utters statements as dogmatic pronouncements, which one must simply accept: dogma one: the models were unable to predict the rapid intensification of the storm; dogma two: it’s all because of “human action” (left unspecified and undefined). Unstated problem: if the predictive models of the storm were so off in a weather event of a few hours, what does this say about the predictive models of “climate change”?
