You are still, for some reason, confusing the 20% predicted to cross aridity thresholds with the total expected to become more arid.
No, this was simply economy of writing it down.
And you have no idea how agriculture is supposed to adapt, or whether it can - you simply assume that the "new places" will allow adaptation, that agriculture can be continually adapted to each new year's needs over hundreds of years of unstable climate and extremely volatile weather with no serious loss of productivity, and so forth.
Nonsense. Most investments in infrastructure, in particular those necessary to handle more and more volatile rain, The time scale for climate change is nonetheless hundreds of years. And even if it would accelerate a lot, there would not be a necessity to adapt each new year over hundreds of years. But, say, each decade over thirty years or so.
All those assumptions of yours contradict the findings of the researchers in the field. You are in denial of that.
I'm not in denial of any facts presented. I ignore only unjustified claims of alarmists. Even this is not a denial, it is simply nothing worth to comment. A denial would be an explicit claim that, "no, this not so". This is what I do if I have own different evidence, and in this case I present it in appropriate form. If my response is "please provide the evidence", this is not denial. So, yet another lie.
Yep. You're welcome. Now all you have to do is read up on the latest research.
Given that I don't question the AGW itself, as well as most of its consequences too, and tend to refer on my websites to the most horrible scenarios without questioning the justification, at most 0.1% of the research will be really relevant for my claims. And they will be scattered over a much larger domain than climate science, given that my main points are related with various possibilities of humans to react, to politics, sociology, economy (say, in arguments about migration caused by AGW) and many others (costs for building dikes and so on).
You have not only questioned, you have outright denied that.
1) You have posted nonsense about "optimal temperature", for example - which depends entirely on the effects of the warming you assume would achieve it, which depend largely on the rapidity of the warming.
Nonsense. My claim was "I have never questioned that AGW is much faster than any global natural warming event in the geological record". None of your points, even if correct (as usual they are not), would define a questioning that AGW is much faster than natural global warming events.
The consideration of the optimal temperature aims at distinguishing the costs related with a large rapidity from the costs related with the final result being bad. So, it does not contain any claims about the temp. Instead, it is explicitly clarified that if the temp is high, adaptation may be expensive.
2) You have also posted a lot of denial of the threats from AGW, paired with assertions of its benefits (failure to assume these benefits exist identifies the "alarmist", according to you): both the minimization of the threats and the claims of benefits you derived from assuming the warmer temps of AGW will have the effects of past warmer temps.
First, its wrong. Where I consider the particular threats, I consider the speed of change as predicted by climate science. Then, for some of the advantages the speed of change is irrelevant. The larger CO2 is good for plant growth immediately. Then, I refer to the past only to make quite obvious points - say, references to much much larger CO2 content in the past, but flora and fauna being fine at that time. So, this refers to the question which temperatures/CO2 content is unproblematic for live on Earth. I have never denied that a very fast change can cause problems for some species - they may be unable to switch to the new locations where the weather would be optimal after the change. But this will not cause really serious problems for the simple reason that humans can help if necessary.
3) Among the threats you denied was the "methane bomb" feedback - you explicitly claimed that methane's residence time was too short to pose a threat of long-term serious harm. That entire argument of yours, in addition to revealing your ignorance of the physical situation (the implications of methane's rapidly increasing residence time, in particular) rested on your assumption that AGW was not rapid enough to feed back into methane's short residence time. It is.
Learn to read. First, I never denied that permanent sources of methane will have an influence. Then, I have also not denied that large one-time contributions will have an influence: "It is, nonetheless, not completely harmless - it may increase the speed of a warming. But it does not increase the final temperature."
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/methane.php .
And China's amazing achievements have not been able to keep up with even the early, slower stages of AGW.
Because you claim so? China is among the states which became greener during the last decades.
You declared that a century's 3-4m rise in global sea level was the "worst case", and that such a rise would not be disastrous. You declared sea level rise to be a "local problem" that could be handled by "building dikes". And you were not joking.
You have no idea what you are talking about, in other words, and are satisfied merely to deny the findings of the research in the field.
Over and over and over.
And you are unable to present any reasonable arguments, to provide any quotes from scientific sources, but restrict yourself to boring repetitions of "you know nothing" claims.
You obviously have no idea what a four meter rise in average sea level in a century would do to human civilization - especially if it occurs, as now expected, in a series of sudden jumps.
Feel free to share the evidence from where these expectations come from, with references, so that one can extract information about the meaning of these "sudden jumps".
If a "sudden jump", compared with the average of 3 cm per year of the worst case scenario, means, say, a factor 10, 30 cm in one year, then nothing horrible happens. Because a flood protection which would be adequate would have to have a reserve of more than 1 m to what is expected. Then, the increase of the average would be known quite immediately, so the whole world would know that the average is now 30 cm higher, and they would have to think about increasing the dikes which are critical. This would not be everywhere at the same time, only some part of the dikes would require an immediate increase. This increase would, then, made with some reserve: One would not add 30 cm, but two meters.
About salt:
Unless the extra precipitation falls as torrential additions to existing storm patterns and frequencies, as expected.
Some large part of it I would also expect to fall at the places where we have large rainfall already now - in the mountains. These are regions with not much agriculture anyway, but the water can be easily collected there with dams and then distributed in a nice way downstream. So, all the agriculture downstream would profit from these horrors.
Unless the salt contaminates the aquifers agriculture depends on, as expected.
As usual, no evidence for the expectation. Instead, I have already presented evidence for the opposite effect - more rain will decrease the salt content of the rivers:
The amount of water flowing into the Sacramento and San Joaquin river delta is the single most important determinant of salinity at the export pumps, and the amount of inflow has been shown to be largely determined by hydrology. During rainy years, the average salinity at the pumps is low. The average electrical conductivity – a measure of salinity – at the banks pumping plant for the 1983 water year (one of the rainiest on record) was 276 lS/cm, corresponding to 431 mg/L. In the critically dry 1991 water year, electrical conductivity at the same location averaged 589 lS/cm, corresponding to 920 mg/L.
Vineis, P., Chan, Q., Khan, A. (2011). Climate change impacts on water salinity and health. J. Epidemiology and Global Health 1, 5-10
Unless the extra precipitation on the salt-contaminated fields falls at long intervals, with drought in between - as expected.
No. The effect of washing away the salt depends on the amount of water which flows away instead of remaining at the place. This part is even larger if the rain which causes this is heavier.
