Gneissic you said "Hindmost is incorrect about the hydrologic cycle. Water is in limited supply in many places so it's input is less than the theoretical maximum." and I asked for evidence. You referred me to Derty Sanchez' last comment. But that comment said nothing remotely about water in "limited supply" or "theoretical maximum".
Let me spell it out a bit more : Clausius-Clapeyron is explained quite simply here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius–Clapeyron_relation
The key element is "In practical terms, this equation determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature.".
[NB, Wikipedia is unreliable for contentious issues, but this is OK. If you doubt it, check elsewhere]
Wijffels et al did a study of extreme rainfall events, and were surprised and delighted to find that their results closely matched Clausius-Clapeyron. These are selected bits from an ABC Catalyst program:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3796205.htm
Wijffels: Most of the evaporation and most of the rainfall in the world actually cycles through the ocean surface, not through the land. Because it covers 75 percent of the Earth, most of the action's actually happening over the ocean.
Narration: By studying over 8,000 rain gauges across the world, Australian scientists have confirmed that extreme rainfall events have also been intensifying. That means we're getting more water from a big storm than we would have 30 or 40 years ago. Around 7 percent more per degree rise in temperature.
Alexander: It surprised us all, I have to say, that we got the answer we expected. So... Because usually, in science, you don't always end up with the answer you expect. So, to sort of see this coming out consistently in the data, was... was somewhat of a surprise.
Wijffels: We're already starting to detect and see big changes in the extreme events. And we've only really warmed the Earth by 0.8 of a degree. If we were to warm the Earth by 3 or 4 degrees, the changes in the hydrological cycle could be near 30 percent. I mean, that's just a huge change, and it's very hard for us to imagine.
So the big mystery [not!] is why the computer models, with no evidence to justify them, use less than half the amount.
