Warming and Drought

"It's hot in the desert, so therefor warmer temperatures must cause drought."  That is the logical fallacy I address today over at Climate Skeptic, where we find evidence that, if anything, global warming is making things wetter rather than drier.


  1. Allen:

    Global warming folks could really use some lessons in Taoism. It's neither good nor bad; it just is.

  2. Magnus Andersson:

    I agree, but also less clouds makes the ground more dry in many areas, during spring and autumn for example.

    Also exceptions exist. Southeast US should e.g. get dry from GW. Africa, Latin America, Northern US and Canada etc will instead be more humid from GW. However, if there is much AGW to support/boost natural good GW we can't say... :-/

    Generally a more warm and humid earth is better for life. California may get wildfires (but it's natural, and some spieces need wildfires to survive; everything can't get better for everyone everytime; people may move sometimes...).

  3. Magnus Andersson:

    BTW: The dominant positive outcome - the total picture - from global warming leftish catastrophe priests in the media of course never gonna mention. That's really sad. Can this be compared with the ignorance in the medieval society?

  4. happyjuggler0:

    A drought is when there isn't enough new water (usually defined by rainfall and capture) to replace the water used. The more water used, the harder it is to replace. Human population is growing, and they have to live somewhere, so that uses more water, making it harder for 100% water replacement to occur. Hence drought, and "severe drought".

    Anyone who has studied economics even a little bit ought to have alarm bells ringing in his head whenever he hears the word "shortage". In economics you learn that there is no such thing as a shortage, but rather it is more more properly framed as "a shortage at a price". If there is a persistent shortage of something then the price is too low. What is needed is private property rights in water. Failing that due to concerns over "natural monopolies", then I suggest pricing water at or near replacement levels assuming replacement came from desalination plants. Then put the new "profit" into a "permanent dividend fund" similar to Alaska and divide it up equally to each man woman and child citizen who resides in the area in question. You'll have near instant water conservation and the "needy poor" will likely make money on the deal, so shut up already about the price hike being "regressive". No need for government intrusion on how you water your lawn or how long you take showers for under high pressure water. Consider this link entitled I Can Fix the Water "Shortage" in Five Minutes.