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. 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 there is a record amount of water vapor in the atmosphere now, that droughts are regional, not global, and that “atmospheric thirst” is more rhetorical flourish than 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:
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 NYY 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. In fact, 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 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 a short-term snapshot influenced by factors like La Niña events, reduced solar activity, and, again, the Tonga eruption. 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 in the data.
The NYT also assumes that the purported increase in atmospheric water vapor will broadly negatively impact human life. But higher carbon dioxide concentrations and modest warming have resulted in longer growing seasons and enhanced carbon dioxide fertilization, which has 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, that 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 own 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.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
“The idea that a warming atmosphere is increasingly “demanding” water anthropomorphizes a complex physical process”
Careful, hot air holds more moisture. I know a meteorologist knows, but not everybody else does.
Applying the word thirsty is anthropomorphism but it works well enough for most Earthlings.
“RELATIVE HUMIDITY:
Relative humidity (RH) (expressed as a percent) also measures water vapor, but RELATIVE to the temperature of the air. In other words, it is a measure of the actual amount of water vapor in the air compared to the total amount of vapor that can exist in the air at its current temperature. Warm air can possess more water vapor (moisture) than cold air, so with the same amount of absolute/specific humidity, air will have a HIGHER relative humidity if the air is cooler, and a LOWER relative humidity if the air is warmer. What we “feel” outside is the actual amount of moisture (absolute humidity) in the air.”
(as Weather and other STEM professionals know)
of course the argument that the air is “thirstier” presumes the air is warmer.
Unfortunately, the hottest places in the world are that way because of a lack of moisture. As are the coldest.
Whether every meteorologist knows that or not, it’s a fact.
Maybe you meant to say that it is possible that hot air holds more moisture [than cold air], but it depends on a number of factors.
Sorry, but people think things like “hot air rises”, which may or may not be true, depending on circumstances. Terms like “sucking” or “thirsty” are generally pointless anthropomorphisms (I never thought I’d use that word!).
Sure, we all know that warmer air can hold more water vapor. But warm air and vapor rises and as it rises it cools and as it cools the water condenses and falls. What goes up must come down. So warming leads to more rain and thus less drought. My own proprietary climate model proves it.
Models rarely ‘prove’ anything. Before an airplane is built, and a human test pilot put at risk, model predictions are verified in a wind tunnel. Research models are best used to help understand how complex feedback loops interact, thus helping to inductively develop mental models of how reality works.
Guess I need to include sarc tags.
My apologies for missing your sarcasm. There are frequently off-the-wall comments found here and I have grown used to them.
The only thing I know is that the Sun feels hotter. If that has anything to do with a declining magnetic field could be. We know that only direct Sunlight can warm the Ocean’s surface.
It is generally acknowledged that as people get older, they are less tolerant to extreme temperatures.
Reminded me of this from a couple of years ago, blaming a lack of warming on irrigation.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2390433-curiously-cool-summers-in-us-midwest-linked-to-crop-irrigation/
The New York Times knows its readership. They want climate panic porn, so the Times will provide that.
Exactly.
Ideologically-invested people will turn on the evangelists of their religion the second they detect a scintilla of “heresy” by the hitherto trusted evangelists.
And the punishment inflicted will be much, much harsher than would be meted out to ordinary agnostics.
The NYT knows all this, and lives in constant fear accordingly.
It’s utterly imaginable to me how a supposedly respectable news organzation can write such appalling nonsense. Their readership skill keeps going up, so the NYT must, like the WaPo, be selecting for a special breed of urban dumb.
Did you mean “unimaginable?
As soon as you hear a ridiculous term like “thirstier atmosphere” you can safely stop reading. Such useless propaganda. Same with using hurricane and tornado damage dollar amounts instead of actual data. They think people are really stupid and they are unfortunately half right.
The following admonition usually attributed to Mark Twain –
“If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read them you are misinformed.”
is certainly applicable here.
In the “You can’t make this $@*# up category”, apparently they can … and not just “science”.
Thomas Jefferson in a 1807 wrote a letter complaining about the misinformation in newspapers –
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day”
It raises some questions about the kind of people who are attracted to journalism. At the very least, they have no hesitation lying to advance their political beliefs, and apparently don’t believe that the electorate has to have access to the truth for a democracy to function as intended.
In direct contradiction to some of their own lofty slogans.
I believe WaPos’ slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
If they were honest about their own product, it should read “Democracy Dies if You Believe What We Say.”
Drought happens.
Down here on the Australian east coast over the last 2 months, week have experience exactly the opposite.
Here’s a nail-biting experience of an expedition of 4WDs traversing the Simpson Desert a couple of weeks ago, and getting caught in the “Inland Sea” of Channel Country > Lake Eyre “flooding rains” canceling “desert drought” almost overnight.
The “Land of Droughts and Flooding Rains” indeed!
These adventurers (well, half of their vehicles anyway) miraculously forded hundreds of flood plains (usually bone-dry desert flats), eventually limped into Birdsville, where they were stranded, isolated from the rest of the country for about 3 weeks.
Settle back with an adult beverage, and see why Dorothea Mackellar penned “My Country”.
(Especially the 2nd half of the video movie)
(And why novices should never venture into the Aussie outback alone or without meticulous preparation & planning. Nature unleashed is NOT your friend).
Yep, and its great to see Lake Eyre with some water in it for the first time in many years. 🙂
That was truly an epic nail-biter. Thanks for posting.
Clearly, the atmosphere should be drinking Dos Equis.
Wait, I think I’ve got it. The heating planet causes the atmosphere to become thirsty, causing it to suck up moisture, which causes drought. But then, the atmosphere needs to “pee”, which causes floods. It’s a vicious circle. Where do I collect my grant money?
You have to translate your hypothesis into ‘academese’ in a grant proposal (secret handshakes not necessary) to establish that you are one of the right kind of people to receive the largess controlled by other academics.
Water vapor was measured 1988-2023 by NASA/RSS and numerical TPW anomalies reported at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/old_files/tpw_v07r02_198801_202312.time_series.txt WV has been increasing about 1.4 % per decade. The data with base 28.73 mm added are graphed at Figure 5 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338805648_Water_vapor_vs_CO2_for_planet_warming_14 shown here:
Doesn’t that look suspiciously the same as the UAH temperature series 😉
It is a reformulation of the basic conundrum of whether increasing CO2 causes warming, or whether warming causes increased production of biogenic CO2.
CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate.
They are certainly related:
“Higher temperatures caused by climate change…” I thought higher temperatures caused climate change. Words matter.
Drought? So much rain in Wokeachusetts that I’m seeing more mosquitos than ever before in early June- and I was a forester for 50 years!
Anthony ==> another Home Run!
That can’t be said enough.