Another Day, Another Extreme Hurricane

It looks like a hybrid Earthship...good job. Choosing a desert area is also wise as you build for climate to begin with.

 

You should see what's happening on the ocean bottom.

This is what happens when the ice melts.

 

I built my house with the entire south side windows but they are vertical. Doesn't that get a bit hot in summer?

 

Does not matter.

The point is that warmists have always excused the failure of their predictions by saying these things are just "weather", and weather is just local and not related to "climate".

Now you are trying to tweak that argument and claim that "weather" that agrees with AGW is proof of AGW, while "weather" that does not fall in line with warmist predictions does not count.

In other words, you want to say big hurricanes are due to AGW, little hurricanes are irrelevant.

 

You obviously haven't read through the thread. I said this earlier:

According to the NOAA, they can't say for certain if there will be more hurricanes from AGW. There is more certainty, especially in the future, that hurricanes will be more intense due to AGW, by 2-11% by the end of the 21st century. There is even more certainty that hurricanes will contain more water, by 10-15%, by the end of the century. It's well established that we are already seeing more associated water. This is all based on the models, which have been shown to be remarkably accurate thus far.

 

Yeah, we have to pull the shades in the summer. That's a must. The berming and thermal mass keeps it cool without AC, which we don't have. What area do you live in? Does your place get hot in the Spring and Fall, when the sun is more angled?

 

The warmists predicted more tornadoes and hurricanes, and more severe tornadoes and hurricanes. All have been false. Now the warmists resort to statistics - you know what they say? Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Or was it statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. Either applies to warmists. Warmist honesty is like media truth, both are oxymorons.

 

So these are the authors, reviewers, and scientific experts of the 2014 National Climate Assessment. All lying? A big conspiracy against Battle3?

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

I live in NE Washington and no our house stays nice in spring and fall with no shades but it's generally pretty cool here those times of year. In winter on a sunny day we can let the fire go out and even have to open windows sometimes even if it's in the 30s outside. Passive solar really works if you have the lot or land that can handle it. When we bought this land there was a small cabin on it with windows like yours that I lived in while building our house and it was like an oven in summer which is why I asked. I guess good insulated shades would solve that problem though.

 

The AGW prediction was for gulf hurricanes that were Katrina or worse and that just plain didn't happen for over a decade.

 

The shades aren't really insulated, but the glass is Low-E. If we don't pull the shades, and it gets up to the mid-80s or higher, we have the problem described.

 

A decade isn't a long time, based on the models. I posted this statement earlier, which talks about the models and the numbers, regarding hurricanes:

According to the NOAA, they can't say for certain if there will be more hurricanes from AGW. There is more certainty, especially in the future, that hurricanes will be more intense due to AGW, by 2-11% by the end of the 21st century. There is even more certainty that hurricanes will contain more water, by 10-15%, by the end of the century. It's well established that we are already seeing more associated water. This is all based on the models, which have been shown to be remarkably accurate thus far.

The percentages are fairly low, and since we're only 17% of the way to the end of the century, they are actually much lower. However, we are seeing more extreme precipitation events (top 1%) than in the past. Over 70% in the Northeast. I posted the graph earlier.

 

It isn't and it is expected by 2100.

 

The way I understand it these last two heavy precipitation hurricanes, especially the one in Texas were due to them being so slow moving which was because of blocking high pressure to the north.

 

That was a reason for the stalled storm but had NOTHING to do with the storm itself.

 

The stalling is why so much rain was dropped. If it had moved right through it wouldn't have the time needed lay down that much precipitation.

 

Pretty much what I just stated.

 

Then we agree. The storm didn't have an unusual amount of precipitation in it and the reason for the flooding was a high pressure to the north that made the hurricane become basically stationary. Nothing to see here,move along folks.

 

You have overstepped. The OP did not overstep. He said that he doesn't know if it's related. That is the correct answer, and is consistent with climatologist models from the experts.

 

The models are not about hurricanes and are also unfalsifiable but if a model consistently does not predict things that do happen and predict things that do not happen then they are just playthings.

 

According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the models have been very accurate - if anything too Conservative.

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview

 

LOL, sure, the warmth, according to the hypothesis, is supposed to show in the troposphere first and the models over predict by 2 to 3 times. The models did not predict the slowdown in warmth starting around 2000. Not one tide gauge around the world show any acceleration but the same pace the last 100 years.

 

AGW supporters made predictions which failed to come true. They failed their own tests. They were wrong, and it cuts the credibility of their entire argument.

It does not matter who those AGW people are, their science was wrong. It does not matter what their credentials are, they were wrong.

 

I'll believe the experts over your amateur assertions.

Ditto...