• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Meteorologist Rips NYTimes For Ignoring Real Data, Variability In ‘Thirstier Atmosphere’ Story

Debunking the New York Times’ big climate lie about drought, rainfall, and atmospheric water vapor.

by Anthony Watts
June 09, 2025, 8:40 AM
in Agriculture, Extreme Weather, Geology, Media, News and Opinion, Science
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
1

Irrigation system watering crops
The New York Times (NYT) claims in its recent article, by Rebecca Dzombak, “It’s Not Just Poor Rains Causing Drought. The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier,’” that global warming is intensifying droughts by creating a “thirstier atmosphere” that sucks more moisture from the land. [emphasis, links added]

This assertion is false, clearly debunked by real-world data.

The idea that a warming atmosphere is increasingly “demanding” water anthropomorphizes a complex physical process, and worse, ignores major natural variables—like volcanic activity and regional climate drivers—that actually influence drought more directly.

Evidence suggests that there is a record amount of water vapor in the atmosphere now, that droughts are regional rather than global, and that “atmospheric thirst” is more a rhetorical flourish than a scientific fact.

Let’s begin with semantics. The atmosphere is not a sentient entity—it doesn’t get “thirstier.” That is a term more appropriate for a Gatorade commercial than climate science. What the researchers are referring to is an increase in potential evapotranspiration, a concept that has been well known for decades.

Higher temperatures can increase the potential for evaporation, but that doesn’t mean evaporation always increases. Factors like humidity, cloud cover, soil moisture, ground cover, and wind speed all play major roles, and those often vary independently of global temperature.

Even more crucially, this narrative conveniently omits one of the most significant injections of water vapor into the atmosphere in recent history: the eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano in January 2022.

According to a 2022 study published in Geophysical Research Letters, the eruption blasted approximately 146 teragrams (146 million metric tons) of water vapor into the stratosphere—enough to increase global stratospheric water vapor by 10%.

It documented a massive, unprecedented increase in stratospheric water vapor from a natural volcanic event—an event that should absolutely be part of any honest discussion about current atmospheric moisture and so-called “thirstier” drought models.

That Hunga Tonga’s injection of water vapor clearly shows up in the data from Copernicus as seen in the figure below:

Figure: Annual anomalies in the average amount of total column water vapour over the 60°S–60°N domain relative to the average for the 1992–2020 reference period. The anomalies are expressed as a percentage of the 1992–2020 average. Data: ERA5. Credit: C3S/ECMWF.

That’s not a minor blip, and it blows the NYT idea of a “thirstier” atmosphere clear out of the water. Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, and this sudden influx significantly influences short-term atmospheric dynamics, including regional precipitation patterns and, yes, drought.

Funny how the NYT fails to mention this natural event that throws a wrench in their narrative.

What’s more, the NYT article leans heavily on a model-based study that attempts to back-calculate “atmospheric thirst” going back to 1901. But here’s the catch: models are only as good as the assumptions and data you feed into them.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Chapter 12, clearly states that “there is low confidence in the human influence on observed changes in meteorological droughts globally” (IPCC AR6 Chapter 12, Section 12.3.2).

The IPCC—the supposed gold standard of climate consensus—explicitly distances itself from attributing droughts to human-caused climate change. Yet the NYT conveniently skips that detail.

Rather than climate change causing a long-term trend of increasing droughts, the IPCC also reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years, and the agency expresses “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.

So the “thirstier” climate is dropping more precipitation back to Earth, resulting in less “thirsty” soil. You can’t have it both ways; if the Earth is getting more rain, it can’t be drying out, and years of drought data show that it is not.

Drought is a regional phenomenon driven by local weather patterns, ocean currents like ENSO (El Niño–Southern Oscillation), and natural variability, not some imaginary global “drought machine.”

As the Climate at a Glance summary from The Heartland Institute points out, data from the U.S. and global sources do not support the claim that droughts are becoming historically unprecedented.

One peer-reviewed study found that the most intense global droughts of the last 120 years occurred in the early to mid-20th century, long before the recent increase in CO2 emissions.

Although the NYT article states that there has been a 74 percent increase in drought-affected area between 2018 and 2022, even if true, the statistic is nothing more than a short-term snapshot influenced by factors like La Niña events, reduced solar activity, and, again, the Tonga eruption.

The Tonga–Hunga volcanic eruption blasted roughly 146 teragrams (146 million metric tons) of water vapor into the stratosphere—enough to increase global stratospheric water vapor by 10%.

Cherry-picking short timescales is a hallmark of climate alarmism. If they’d extended the dataset to include the Dust Bowl of the 1930s or severe droughts in the 1950s, or even data over the past 30 years, no increasing trend of areas affected by drought would show up.

The NYT also assumes that the purported increase in atmospheric water vapor will broadly and negatively impact human life. But higher carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and modest warming have resulted in longer growing seasons and enhanced CO2 fertilization, which have dramatically boosted crop yields and improved drought resilience in crops.

Any anthropogenic increase in water demand is not due to climate change, but population growth, accompanied by increased agricultural and urban water use. Rising water demand can be met by adaptation, not hysteria.

As the NYT article mentions, some farmers are updating irrigation systems. That’s good. But blaming the need for irrigation upgrades on climate change is like blaming a new set of tires on the existence of roads.

Lastly, we’re told that “the trend is set to continue”—again based on model projections, which are untested and not based on observed trends. But history has shown us that nature often defies the climate models.

In the early 2000s, scientists predicted permanent drought (so-called “climate aridification”) in California, only for the state to swing to record-breaking wet years just a decade later. Nature is variable, not linear.

In conclusion, the NYT article is a masterclass example of turning natural variability and questionable modeling into a headline-ready climate crisis story.

By attributing regional droughts to global temperature trends and anthropomorphizing the atmosphere as “thirsty,” they abandon scientific rigor in favor of sensational storytelling.

Compounding their error, the NYT ignores countervailing data on rainfall, long-term drought, and even the IPCC’s cautious language on drought attribution.

When news outlets resort to metaphors about “thirsty skies” and glaringly omit factual explanations, they’re not informing—they’re indoctrinating. Honest climate reporting requires a lot less narrative and a lot more reference to the hallmarks of the scientific method: available data and testable propositions.

Read more at Climate Realism

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

News

Scientific Bombshell Undermines The Climate Doom Narrative

Oct 23, 2024
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024

Comments 1

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    5 months ago

    The New York Slimes has been a leftists propaganda Rag since the 1930’s when they covered up for Stalin no one should bother with this leftists rag

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • clouds sun earthNew Study Finds Recent Global Warming Mostly Driven By Natural Forces—Not CO2
    Oct 27, 2025
    Recent warming is largely due to natural climate factors, with only one-third linked to rising greenhouse gases, new study shows. […]
  • Poverty in IndiaHow Climate Dogma Is Keeping The World’s Poor In The Dark
    Oct 27, 2025
    Western climate policies keep billions in poverty by denying developing nations access to affordable energy, all in the name of climate change. […]
  • EU's Ursula Von Der Leyen and TrumpUS Pressures Europe To Roll Back Climate Mandates, Targets Net Zero Policies
    Oct 27, 2025
    The Trump administration urges EU to weaken rules on emissions and sustainability, citing risks to trade and energy reliability. […]
  • aoc dollarClimate Tightwads: Most Americans Reject $1 Monthly Carbon Fee, Poll Shows
    Oct 27, 2025
    Most Americans won’t pay $1 a month to fight the so-called threat of human-caused climate change, new AP-NORC/EPIC poll shows. […]
  • Surface miningTrump Moves To Break Communist China’s Grip On Rare Earth Minerals
    Oct 27, 2025
    Trump moves to break Communist China’s control over rare earth minerals critical to U.S. technology and defense. […]
  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
  • ocean sun cloudsNew Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A Factor
    Oct 24, 2025
    Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
  • LNG terminal in germanyU.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG Exports
    Oct 24, 2025
    U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
  • marines trainingCrazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ Threat
    Oct 23, 2025
    The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky