There Is A Drought in Academia: A Drought in Honest Research on the Subject of Drought and Other Weather Extremes

From ClimateREALISM

By Guest Contributor

Guest Post by Thomas J. Shepstone, originally posted at the ‘Energy Security and Freedom’ Substack.

A little over a year ago, a study titled “Warming Accelerates Global Drought Severity” was published in Nature, a climate-consumed journal that has lost all credibility among serious folks. The authors included multiple academics from the University of Oxford in the UK, an elitist institution if there ever was one.

The abstract of the study said this (emphasis and paragraphing added):

Drought is one of the most common and complex natural hazards affecting the environment, economies and populations globally. However, there are significant uncertainties in global drought trends, and a limited understanding of the extent to which a key driver, atmospheric evaporative demand (AED), impacts the recent evolution of the magnitude, frequency, duration and areal extent of droughts.

Here, by developing an ensemble of high-resolution global drought datasets for 1901–2022, we find an increasing trend in drought severity worldwide. Our findings suggest that AED has increased drought severity by an average of 40% globally.

Not only are typically dry regions becoming drier, but also wet areas are experiencing drying trends.

During the past 5 years (2018–2022), the areas in drought have expanded by 74% on average compared with 1981–2017, with AED contributing to 58% of this increase. The year 2022 was record-breaking, with 30% of the global land area affected by moderate and extreme droughts, 42% of which was attributed to increased AED. Our findings indicate that AED has an increasingly important role in driving severe droughts and that this tendency will likely continue under future warming scenarios.

The study also produced numerous headlines in popular media such as these:

  • The New York Times (4 June 2025): “Higher Temperatures and a Thirsty World.”
  • The Guardian (3 July 2025): “Weatherwatch: how ‘thirstier’ atmosphere is making droughts more severe.”
  • ScienceAlert: “Our Atmosphere’s Growing Thirst Is a Hidden Cause of Worsening Droughts.”
    Lead author Solomon Gebrechorkos wrote that atmospheric thirst caused ~40%
  • Earth.com:
    • “How a thirsty atmosphere is making global droughts much worse.”
    • Later follow-up: “Earth has become a planet where the air is always thirsty, and that’s quickly drying out the land.”
  • Oxford / UC Santa Barbara / Cardiff University press releases (widely picked up): “Earth’s growing thirst is making droughts worse, even where it rains” and “The atmosphere’s growing thirst is making droughts worse, even where it rains.”
    These used the same 40% figure and an “invisible sponge” metaphor.
  • Climate Central (October 2025): “Warmer, Thirstier Air Worsens Drought.”

Now, the whole thing has been retracted. Here’s that story, translated from the German publication Science Files:

Drought Catastrophe Cancelled: The Next Climate Change Junk Paper Has Been Retracted

By Michael Klein

September 16, 2026

Because the climate is changing, the atmosphere drinks more [perhaps out of frustration]; because the atmosphere drinks more, it becomes drier on Earth… Most of the authors from the not fully named “author pack” make their living at the University of Oxford, and they all announced the apocalypse by drying out in 2025: Since 1981, they calculated, droughts on Earth have become more severe and more intense;

  • An increased “thirst” of the atmosphere made droughts from 2018 to 2022 40% more severe than in the 37 years before that.
  • Comparing the two periods: 5 years since 2018 versus 37 years since 1981, the area affected by drought has become 74% larger, 58% of that due to an increased “thirst of the atmosphere.”
  • Since 2022, 30% of the Earth’s land surface has been affected by moderate to extreme drought;
  • With further climate change, all of this will become much worse.

These are the results that Gebrechorkos and his co-authors spread via the mainstream media, and these are the results that are all wrong.

The authors miscalculated, mixed up data, weighted them incorrectly, compared apples at the equator with dry ice in the Arctic. The comparison periods on which all the results that made it into the media are based are incorrectly coded, so data were assigned incorrectly…

The fact that the junk study has been withdrawn does not change the fact that the articles in the mainstream media, such as the one from ZEIT that we presented above, are still there, have not been provided with any correction, and even if they had been provided with a correction, it would remain largely without effect, because contributions like that of Gebrechorkos et al. (2025) are, in my view, only written in order to be distributed by the media and to hype up the climate apocalypse.

This is not a claim made off the cuff, but one that can be demonstrated from the original contribution by Gebrechorkos et al. (2025), a contribution that was designed in such a way that the “dryness” of the Earth and its soils estimated at the end — a largely arbitrary value, the result of an absurd calculation — is maximized.

This is why the entire climate movement is collapsing. It’s all built on hype by those with special interests in perpetuating a grift, in this case, a pursuit of academic praise and, no doubt, research money put up by other grifters.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
September 29, 2026 10:02 am

Libral: All scientists are right about everything
MAGA: All science is just wrong

Sane person: armageddinouttahere

drednicolson
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 29, 2026 10:12 am

All generalizations are dangerous, including this one.

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 29, 2026 10:53 am

I don’t think ANY science claims to be right in the sense of absolutely right- absolute truth. Both sides think much of science is pretty good but not all of it. The basic lab sciences- physics and chemistry are more likely get close to have good, testable theories. Other sciences get further from being able to “prove” beyond a shadow of doubt that their theories are “right”- though they may be good approximations. The further you get from lab science the closer you get to politics- who benefits and who loses from conclusions. Libs do tend to avoid criticism of any peer reviewed climate science, falsely assuming it must be right.

MAGA is more about politics than merely the climate issue.

September 29, 2026 10:12 am

Published in climate obsessed Nature. Then retracted. Speaks poorly for Nature pal review. In the past, Nature has published other climate alarms comprising easily exposed clear academic misconduct, rather than just slop as here. I provided examples in several essays in ebook Blowing Smoke.

September 29, 2026 10:13 am

Everybody on all sides of this issue stand to lose money, influence and prestige and as a consequence deny and resist the bogus tent poles of the GHE/GHG/CAGW circus tent.

ABSTRACT:
Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous RGHE heat balance graphics don’t plus violate GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface BB impossible.
RGHE is bogus & CAGW is a scam!

FACTS & EVIDENCE:

Tent Pole 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)

Tent Pole 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a BB.
EVIDENCE:
According to TFK_bams09 atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd net W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a BB. These graphics & data tables contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors.

Tent Pole 3: Because of the significant (60% per TFK_bams09) non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder

CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
September 29, 2026 10:24 am

Down-voted for incessant spam. We get it.

September 29, 2026 10:22 am

They should read what the IPCC says:

IPCC AR4 Chapter ten Executive Summary 

Mean Precipitation

For a future warmer climate, the current generation of
models indicates that precipitation generally increases in the
areas of regional tropical precipitation maxima (such as the
monsoon regimes) and over the tropical Pacific in particular,
with general decreases in the subtropics, and increases at high
latitudes as a consequence of a general intensification of the
global hydrological cycle. Globally averaged mean water
vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Precipitation Extremes and Droughts

Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase,
particularly in tropical and high latitude areas that experience
increases in mean precipitation. Even in areas where mean
precipitation decreases (most subtropical and mid-latitude
regions), precipitation intensity is projected to increase but
there would be longer periods between rainfall events. There
is a tendency for drying of the mid-continental areas during
summer, indicating a greater risk of droughts in those regions.
Precipitation extremes increase more than does the mean in
most tropical and mid- and high-latitude areas.

_____________________________________________________________________

170 words and one but; blah…blah…blah…

Hardly a recipe for severe drought.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 29, 2026 10:30 am

You want to be published? You want to keep your job? You want to be accepted by your peers that want the same things? Join and be published, keep your job, and be part of the “in crowd”. Fight the propaganda machine and be cancelled. Research institutions and universities are controlled by money/grants and the people that control the same. The question is how did all those in control allow their integrity to be compromised?

NotChickenLittle
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 29, 2026 10:37 am

To paraphrase the axiom, “Hard times don’t build character, they reveal it” I would say their integrity was not compromised, it never existed in the first place..

ResourceGuy
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 29, 2026 10:41 am

Look up aether theory academic enforcement in physics for a smaller example before Einstein put it to bed. Unfortunately there will be no Einstein to clear up the messy climate science realm.

ResourceGuy
September 29, 2026 10:36 am

Do we have permission from formerly prestigious journals to celebrate the El Nino enhanced storms off Baja Mexico adding much needed rain in the southwestern US? Look up similar but stronger conditions in 1983 that raised Lake Mead levels to records.

September 29, 2026 10:46 am

So, Nature has lost touch with nature.