*based on projections that have been wildly wrong before and cherry-picking the probabilities that will scare you because that's what everyone is trying to do

Precipitation AND water deficit. Kay. But right next to each other?

Today is another dangerous wind day here. I'd posit that we've already crossed into a new normal for wind and precipitation. I'm continuing my wind mitigation tree planting here this spring.

[Wild ass guess], the increased rain, ice, and snow I'm seeing is often from the SE, ocean water. The drying lands to my West are dependent on prevailing winds from the west carrying moisture. [/WAG]

According to the map in post #1709. La Crosse Wi is going to have warming. It's 2F rite now on my patio. Winter sux, and I can't open my window.:mecry:

Why do they use RCP 8.5?

Because it's the worst case projection... most likely to scare you

We're in the same situation. I've noticed the past few years, we've gotten more rain during what were drier times of the year.

And for the past two years we've had an increase in winds that is easily noticeable.

Not arguing the validity of the chart, as I know nothing about it. But for what it's worth, flooding and drought frequently go hand-in-hand around here. What happens is the drought makes the dirt hard and packed, so when the rain eventually comes it takes longer to soak into the ground and becomes runoff instead. Once the street drains are overrun, you're fucked--even a normal rain can turn into a damaging flood, especially if an area has been overly developed with too much impervious cover (i.e., non-absorbent concrete covering most of the ground instead of leaving enough open fields.)

Drought and water deficit are two different kinda dots, and I'd expect precipitation doesn't mean flooding. Most of the specified area is rural - Appalachian mountains, hilly and forested.

None of it really matters because RCP 8.5 is an extreme and unlikely scenario. Widespread use of RCP 8.5 discredits climate science.

Here's the border between precipitation and drought/water deficit.

Seems like the correct one to use when saying "if we don't reverse the trend..." The critique of 8.5 mentioned on that page is "we'll run out of fossil fuels altogether before we get there." I'm not sure whether that's an optimistic or pessimistic critique, but it's not one that's useful to argue against weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Never use Wikipedia for any topic that is in any way political.

However, do use Wikipedia instead of absolutely nothing.

Another random site I found has more criticisms.

But they mostly are still of the sort "things can't possibly keep getting worse indefinitely."

How would you arrive at that via Curry's page?

RCP 8.5 "assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions."

World poverty is decreasing rapidly... innovation in solar and storage and efficiency continue. Emissions in developed countries are kinda flat. The only way you could accomplish that fallback would be with widespread Communism and even that seems to have fallen out of favor in most of the developing world.

Amazing how right wing extremists promote that defeatist concept. For the same reason that ant-American right wing extremists in the 1960s said that mileage standards would force everyone to only drive Ford Pintos. Extremists feed on fear and lies.

The tiniest Ford (a Pinto), back then only got 18 MPG. And most larger cars only got 8 or 10 MPG. Why do all my Hondas do 30 or 40 MPG? Innovation by patriotic Americans - in this case Japanese citizens.

Put $30 of gasoline in a car. How many dollars of gasoline actually move the car? About $4. Obviously there is plenty of room for innovation. But extremists fear what moderates do - innovate.

That's less than double, and it's almost doubled in my lifetime, during most of which had China enforcing a one child policy.Rate of technology development is not intrinsically tied to reduction in pollution. New technologies can be very polluting. Cryptocurrency, for example, only increases pollution. Cell phones (and, heck, pretty much every consumer product) have moved more toward disposability with every generation. If they make the phone so that it can last a week on a single charge, that energy efficiency is offset when you throw it in the trash after its nonreplaceable battery dies (or, worse, when the new model comes out).As likely as not, especially in the context of everything else in the model.That was in the summary of the article, but wasn't mentioned in the body.check and check.

This paragraph exemplifies the objection to 8.5, in my view:
Hopefully, yeah, but when the discussion is whether or not to push renewables and environmental regulation, at least one of the models ought to assume we don't. Otherwise it's just "we don't need to do it because the future people in the model will do it for us."