They called it the Dirty Thirties of the dust bowl on the Plains, but
actually from the above
it was 1910 that had the least amount of rainfall. Perhaps the decade
of the thirties was the
worst decade. But then the measuring in early years may have been
rather crude and not
precise enough.

The above list shows that Rainfall is a Zero-Sum parameter, unlike
temperature which is
steadily rising due to Global Warming and perhaps due to the Sun's
solar flare cycles.

It maybe that Rainfall is a Near-Zero-Sum parameter where there is a
small gradual
increase in Rain over landmass over time.

Now one way to perhaps guage or assess Zero-Sum is to ask the question
was there ever
a geological time in which there were no deserts to speak of. Where
all the landmass
continents were green and lush with plants and that no dry desert
existed? I know of no
such time. If there was such a time would perhaps debunk the Zero-Sum
claim. Keeping in
mind that Rain could still be Zero-Sum even if there were no deserts
in that all areas
would receive more rain than that of a desert climate.

But one of the reasons we have deserts is so that other regions can
have more rainfall than
they otherwise would receive.

Now I would think that Rainfall should be slightly increasing and not
a perfect Zero-Sum. Increasing
due to the fact that temperatures are increasing and freeing up water
locked in the polar regions.
And due to the fact of more heat energy in the atmosphere as a means
of delivery of more water
to the continental landmasses. So as temperature increases due to
Global Warming that hurricanes
and typhoons increase in frequency and intensity dumping more water as
rainfall. So the Zero-Sum
is more likely to be a Small Increasing Sum. And the last decades of
1980s and
1990s shows us the increasing rainfall trend.


Learn how to format paragraphs, moron. It's basic computer literacy.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com