Adding new construction would support my argument, not his...but the reason I used existing home sales was you had a previous value from which to compare price change. A new house is more based on what it costs to build at the time [more or less]. They are less subject to price decreases due to crashes because many are custom/semi custom homes.
Tell that to the 17 million people who sold their homes during those years. People have to sell when they have to sell. That's like telling the people after the 1929 crash that they should have held on to their stocks until the early 50's when the prices finally recovered.
Please stick to the topic. There are other places if you want to go on and on about this. I suggest the CT area, as that seems more appropriate than this thread for such nonsense.
However, it is still just one paper. And, that paper does not address the US southwest region - it uses one methodology for studying drought across the globe. So, it is one paper about a different topic! In general, change in the west has been predicted to include greater rainfall in the Pacific Northwest and less rainfall in the American Southwest. That's not challenged by the paper you cited.
I know there are people who think that. The issue of regional changes in climate is still very real. So, maybe those who just can't get around the deep scientific agreement on anthropogenic climate change should get over themselves and consider the problems that are faced.
That is just the arrogance of some that think there is. Its like they think we are cyanobacteria, but somehow we have done in a few decades what they needed 300 million years to do.
As opposed to the majority of scientists here and throughout the world who study the various aspects of climatology?
I don't bring individual papers, as that isn't a rational way of examining this field of science. For example, it introduces the various problems of the paper Hayes cited on drought examines a world average. While that is a legitimate topic of study, it doesn't identify the change that IS happening in various regions. So, besides being one study, it is off topic.
Lucky for you! But, remember how YOU point to papers that fail? You have a gigantic thread dedicated to that. So, surly YOU know that examining papers on any topic requires a broader search as well as expertise on whether the actual question is being addressed.
California will always have a water problem. There is just not enough in the area to support so many people.
CA has been riding on the edge, with its huge population and nation leading agriculture. But, let's remember that the inconsistency of water supply is a significant problem throughout a wide region - NOT just CA. Arizona's problem is not that much different. And, this problem extends up into Colorado and Utah. Also, it's not the only region in the US that has water supply issues. Kansas down through Texas has been in drought conditions affecting agricultural production. Winter Wheat in Kansas is reported to have taken a $1.2B hit, for example.
When you bring any expertise to bear on the topic, we can talk. The paper I cited is in good standing via peer review.
As the US spread westward, the first accounts of what we call the Great Plains referred to the Great American Desert. Water has always been an issue west of the Mississippi. Much of the desert southwest is already overpopulated in relation to water supply. That is one reason why Mrs. Hays and I retired in Virginia rather than Arizona.
And the broader understanding of the question is exactly what you and other climate zealots fail to consider. Combustion in energy production is what is universally improving the lives of humanity. All humanity, not just those that can fly a private jet (powered coincidentally by combustion) to Davos. Everybody. The other side of the climate change debate is that eliminating combustion (which inherently produces CO2 and water as the main exhaust components), aside from being impossible, simply dooms the vast majority of humanity. So maybe you want to research that balance a bit more before you engage in more irrational histrionics.
Agreed. One wonders, given that, why folks like Newsome continue to make CA a sanctuary state.... AZ is already facing the "sorry, no water for you" to developments that were permitted, only to have the city utilities yank the literal ground out from under them. CA will likely have to start managing their state. Time will tell.
I suspect that to a person, the AGW zealots all universally believe in Malthusianism. And Eugenics. The reality is that these folks believe, intensely that the world may "optimally" support ~<Billion people. When you look at statements like "8 Billion people isn't an achievement, it's a _______ " fill in the blank catastrophic explicative... it should tell you where these zealots truly live. It's the fantasy of the "elite" who believe that just enough plantation management and they will have the best life they can possibly imagine, of course at the expense of the slaves who have to support those lifestyles. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-in-the-world-is-a-crisis-not-an-achievement/
To be honest, this is where I in some way converge with many of the most nutcase zealots. I admit, I outright reject the "Gaia Hypothesis", but also see some truths in it. Like all life lives in many sorts of balance. X number herbivores for Y number carnivores, Y number of herbivores for Z acres of plants, and the like. And if there are ever too many of a species, nature corrects for it in various ways. Some of the most obvious are more predators so the herbivores will not eat all the plants. Or how fast life can rebound and occupy a completely devastated landscape in a few years (look at any region aver a massive volcanic event to see that). For humans, we have been the apex predator for around 20ky, so the only thing that has largely kept our populations in check have been fratricide, or disease. And in the last 70 or so years the fratricide has decreased sharply, along with the disease. And as a result we are overpopulating most of the areas we live in. I am sure the planet can support more people, but not as we are living, densely packed into megacities without enough required resources within walking distance and most not even knowing how to acquire needed things to live. And as we have licked almost every bacteria on the planet, now the virus are having a go at us. For well over a decade people would tell me I was crazy when I said that eventually a virous would become pandemic and we would have a repeat of the 1918 flu all over again. And that it would likely come from China (the rainforests there have been "pandemic incubators" for thousands of years - along with Africa and the rest of Asia). That is simply how nature works. Pack too many of a species together too tightly, and you get disease. Does not matter if it is rats, cows, wolves, or human apes. And as more and more of us are packed into environments that could never support so many people without huge assistance, the problem will only grow. Odds are at this point we do not even need a KT type event to drive us to extinction, I bet only about 10% of the human population can even survive on its own without the huge infrastructure we have to keep them alive. Remove all the technology and most would simply die. We have culturally forgotten how to react to pandemics (COVID sure as hell proved that!), and as a society we largely did panaceas that proved ineffective as the disease essentially ran the same course as the previous one over a century earlier without all of the "technology" that should have made it easier to defeat. And I will probably be gone when it happens, but eventually another massive plague will come along, and it will not be a benign summer cold like COVID was. It will devastate the population, with death rates not seen in almost a thousand years. We have become so arrogant that nature will eventually bring us back into balance with a population level that the planet can sustain. And it will not care if that means wiping out 60% of the population like prior plagues had done in the past. And it is the same arrogance that people scream about the weather changing. Not even realizing that if the weather had not "changed", one could still walk from Ireland to Spain on dry land (and most of Europe north of Paris was covered in mile thick ice sheets). And it was not all that long ago that glaciers were growing and advancing in much of Europe and North America, even devouring towns that had been built in their way.
