Considering the subject of hurricane intensity, the following remark from the AR5 should suffice:

Time series of cyclone indices such as power dissipation, an aggregate compound of tropical cyclone frequency, duration, and intensity that measures total wind energy by tropical cyclones, show upward trends in the North Atlantic and weaker upward trends in the western North Pacific since the late 1970s (Emanuel, 2007), but interpretation of longer-term trends is again constrained by data quality
concerns (Landsea et al., 2011).

...

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported longterm (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.

SREX's conclusion :

Based on research subsequent to the AR4 and Kunkel et al. (2008), which further elucidated the scope of uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone data, the most recent assessment by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Expert Team on Climate Change Impacts on Tropical Cyclones (Knutson et al., 2010) concluded that it remains uncertain whether past changes in any tropical cyclone activity (frequency, intensity, rainfall) exceed the variability expected through natural causes, after accounting for changes over time in observing capabilities. The present assessment regarding observed trends in tropical cyclone activity is essentially identical to the WMO assessment (Knutson et al., 2010): there is low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.

I'm well aware that projections possibly suggest an increase of the number of the strongest hurricanes for some basins - but there is no strong consensus on this either (see chapter 14 of the AR5 or SREX).

With the AR5 the scientific ground for alarmism has noticeably shrunk - although there's plenty left for political activists on other topics.

I'm open to suggestions that I should start worrying more about economic collapse.

So you seem to find that the AR5 gives you reason to worry less about climate change.
(Or where you being ironic?)

For example : you seem to be equating absence of evidence (or inconclusive evidence) with evidence of absence. Because there is not a clear worldwide trend to increased drought, or increased flooding, you conclude we should worry less.

But I wonder why you think the absence of clearly measurable worldwide trends demonstrates anything at all : this smells like a strawman. I don't know anyone who has claimed that "global warming will cause worldwide drought", or "global warming will cause worldwide flooding". On the contrary, global warning is expected to cause disruptive climate change in every region.  Intuitively, I would expect that overall warming would increase both floods and drought; but I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, increased flooding in certain regions coincided with decreases in other regions. And I expect that various regions are experiencing disruptive climate change which is currently poorly measured, or which is measured but lacks a history of measurements to detect trends.

As we have previously discussed with respect to flooding, various confounders such as land use changes make trends difficult to prove, even in areas where relatively good records exist. These also tend to be the wealthier regions, which are better at mitigating the effects anyway. As an anecdotal example : a decade-long drought in Texas hardly causes a blip in economic output; a third world nation which experienced something similar might experience collapse of subsistence food production, mass starvation and failure of institutions.

So, I will certainly be interested in discussing the regional analyses when they are released. Perhaps they will trouble your Panglossian calm.

On the other hand, I have no objection to you worrying more about economic collapse (one can never worry too much!)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}