The prediction is explicitly about multi‑decade trends (“over time,” “several trillion dollars”) in:

1. Climate/physical trend: rising ocean heat content and sea‑surface temperatures driving more frequent, rapidly intensifying storms like Hurricane Otis.
2. Economic impact: cumulative global losses on the order of trillions of dollars via insurance, reinsurance, and coastal real estate devaluation.

As of late 2025, only about two years have passed since the prediction. The relevant questions are:

• Do we already know the multi‑decade change in frequency of extreme, fast‑intensifying cyclones? → No; we only have short‑term indications. IPCC and recent studies do indicate warming oceans and an observed increase in the proportion of intense tropical cyclones and rapid intensification events, but full “coming decades” trajectories can’t yet be confirmed.
• Have we already observed “several trillion dollars” in additional, climate‑driven cumulative losses attributable specifically to this mechanism? → Global climate‑related catastrophe and coastal real‑estate risk are mounting, and insured catastrophe losses have risen sharply in recent decades, but attributing multi‑trillion losses specifically to the projected future increase in Otis‑like events requires decades of realized data, not a couple of years.

Because the claim’s time horizon is decades, and key elements (long‑run frequency shift and total losses) cannot yet be empirically verified or falsified, the correct status as of November 30, 2025 is:

• We have early evidence consistent with the mechanism (warmer oceans, high ocean heat content, concerns about insurability and coastal property risk),
• but insufficient elapsed time to say whether the predicted multi‑decade outcome (sustained higher frequency of storms like Otis plus multi‑trillion cumulative losses from that specific dynamic) is right or wrong.

Therefore the prediction is too early to call and must be labeled inconclusive rather than right, wrong, or permanently ambiguous.