So you still haven't read that article. You are doing a lot of work to avoid acknowledging that one solitary article - and there are hundreds to go, in the AGW field. It's a hot topic. But that's not as silly as thinking there is no science or research until after I refer to it. I assure you I have no such powers of creation - there is a great deal of science and research beyond what I have referred to, including in the fields of AGW and related concerns, and you are capable of denying any or all of it. It is accelerating today. If it remains like today, it will remain in acceleration. Your borders have nothing to do with the fact that there will be little or no warning at the the thresholds the article reported. Your "explanation" has nothing to do with those thresholds, or "my" warning (it's not mine - it's the researchers's - another example of your frequent denial of the science and research around AGW). You got the aridity wrong also, but getting the concept of the threshold so badly confused is what has prevented you from That doesn't matter. Valid or invalid, it was a response to your claims about funding pressure. You made many claims about funding pressure, all of them ridiculously wrong - you got the direction of the funding pressure, if any, backwards, because you were relying on the US rightwing propaganda feed for your facts, and once you had done that you had no hope of posting sense. Now you are denying even making those claims. My prediction is that soon you will be making them again - on any given issue of contention the US rightwing propaganda feed often cycles among a set of claims in turn, much as it cycles among its pundits and spokesmen as they make themselves odious and despised and have to give people time enough to forget, and that one will come 'round again in a little while when the stank has sublimated. The article warns us about the likelihood of sudden changes over large regions at once. No fixed points, no borders, nothing like that is involved. You should read it, not just quote it - you don't learn anything by cut and paste. Crossing in either direction would be your interpretation, not mine. You are now forgetting your own posts here. Your interpretation also assumed that the 20% included all the regions that had become significantly more arid - the "n" were experiencing small changes, and the "80-n" were getting significantly wetter, in your explicit description. That is not what the article said. I wonder why you put so much effort into inventing silly crap, instead of reading what's in front of you and replying to the posts of other people as they are written. Not much, true, but I do wonder about that a little. You have never encountered anything like the thresholds discovered by those researchers and reported in that article you have yet to read. They are new to you, and you don't understand them at all. For example, you throw in "at a given point" - in your post, right there, see it? I bolded it for you. Earlier you were posting about "boundaries" and "borders" and the like. If you had read the article, if you had any idea what they were talking about as a "threshold", you would not have done that.