AGW theory predicts that the net flux (the long-term mean distribution of P-E) will, itself, become more extreme as the atmosphere warms and retains greater moisture – with the result that wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will become drier.
Possibly. Global warming or climate change in general, could lead to rain falling in changed locations or changed times. In addition, dry soils from drought do not soak up rainwater very well.
I will also make a statement about possible negative feedbacks. The only negative feedback that anyone has seemed to demonstrate to be real is the fact that melting Antarctic land ice is diluting sea ice, causing it to freeze at a higher temperature. However, one difference between a skeptic and a denier is that he/she is willing to acknowledge the possibility that whatever he/she is skeptical of could be true.
If negative feedbacks actually did bring Earth's temperature back to a set point, they would not necessarily keep Earth's temperature at the set point. Negative feedback has lags and overshoot.
something from a surprising source.
"Note that in response to changed forcings, the governor brings the value back to the desired equilibrium value. The governor does this by producing what is called “overshoot”. “Overshoot” is where the action of the governor drives the system past equilibrium (represented in Fig. 2 by the thick horizontal line at zero). This gives the governor the ability to recover quickly from perturbations.
"Simple negative feedback, on the other hand, cannot maintain a specified speed. All it can do is reduce the size of a speed increase or a decrease . It cannot produce overshoot. As shown in the right side of the graph, simple negative feedback can create what appears to be a controlled equilibrium situation. This happens when feedback balances forcing so there is no change in speed.
"However, this balance of negative feedback is not stable — any change in the forcing will lead to a new equilibrium speed. A governor, on the other hand, maintains the same speed despite changes in forcings."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/29/28...
More severe droughts and flooding than what? Perhaps during 1964 when the climate was cooler, the Pacific Typhoon season there were 39 storms total in which 8 of those storms were cat 5. Because the temperature differential between the surface and the upper troposphere was greater. Convection is what causes severe weather, but you knuckle head denialists cannot grasp that simple fact that AGW induced warming will cause more benign weather globally.
It's hard, perhaps impossible, to point to a specific cause of any particular flood or drought (unless someone built an obstruction and flooded upstream).
But pumping more energy into a system can drive things like ocean currents to warm one place and cool another, like turning up your refrigerator - the inside gets colder and the outside gets hotter.
How can is not?
I know making up really stupid reasons why global warming isn't happening is very soothing to the brains of Con morons.. AND - more importantly - it keeps your Billionaire polluting right down to the point where you begin starving to death from the effects of global warming.
I'm sure your Billionaire really does appreciate your help, your obedience and your eternal stupidity.
Well most of the predictions I have seen are for wet areas to get wetter and dry areas getting dryer, essentially amplifying the existing base climates.
The Sun does not heat Earth's atmosphere evenly which accounts for wind and pressure gradients.
Global warming due to trapped carbon based gases intensifies that effect.
Consequently, the effects are intensified.
More intense storms, more intense droughts.
Get used to it.
Complex systems produce varied results. They are predictable, but simple minds (denialists) can't fathom more than one variable at a time
The world is a big place. If I divert rain from one location to another, then one location gets wetter and another gets drier!
may be
Full disclosure: The answer is fairly clear to me already, but I'd like to hear some of the specialists here express their formulation of it.
Note: This question is especially directed at specialists in science, professional or not, and secondarily at other informed and honest non-specialist posters, but rank amateurs "specializing" in copy-cat recycling of long since demolished fossil fuel industry front group deceptions from the likes of Wattsup and other anti-science blogs, are NOT invited to dump such anti-science on this page.
