In his article dated March 26, 2025 with the title “Heavier Reflection rates in US cities”, Climate Central (CC) claims that “climate change charges the water cycle and brings stronger extremes and associated flood risks in the USA”. When the examination is properly examined, the evidence of alternative, well -known meteorological causes for localized amount of precipitation indicates.
CC claims: “If the atmosphere warms up with climate change, it can absorb more water vapor, which leads to heavier downpours – especially in urban areas.” This is easily explained by local meteorological factors of the city that do not contain climate change.
At the beginning, the CC article obliges a common logical mistake in climate reporting: correlation that is confused with the cause. Yes, some cities have recorded an increase in intensive rainfall in recent decades, but that is not the smoking weapon for anthropogenic climate change, as CC would believe. Rather, the climate at a glance offers a much more comprehensive and more nuanced evaluation of the precipitation trends, which shows not Increased in an alarming or unprecedented manner. In fact, entry into the US precipitation shows that the total precipitation in the last century has slightly increased, but there is no consistent trend of intensification of precipitation that corresponds to the funded hysteria.
Even worse, CC ignores the well-documented EHI effect (UHI) in your article. Cities are warmer than the surrounding rural areas due to the heat-resistant properties of asphalt, concrete and reduced vegetation dies is a basic principle of meteorology that has been recognized for decades.
One of the leading higher precipitation cities CC mentions Reno, NV., Quotes an increase in precipitation by 37% for the city since 1970. A simple experiment carried out by Anthony Watts in 2008 has finally shown the city's strong UHI signature, as can be seen below:
Warmer city surfaces create a more localized convection, which in turn can drive more thunderstorms and precipitation activities via urban cores. Ironically, CC has an entire section of its website, which is dedicated to Uhi in US cities, none of which occurs in their article, which claims that climate change is “charging the water cycle” and precipitation for cities.
Since CC ignores the UHI factor in precipitation reinforcement – in an article that focuses specifically on urban precipitation trends – not only an accident. It is obvious journalistic and scientific misconduct.
Another important mechanism plays here that deals completely: urban air pollution. Cities are loaded with particles from vehicles, industry and heating systems. These particles serve as a condensation native – Zinish seeds on which water vapor condenses, form clouds and improves the precipitation. This is not a new or controversial science. A study from 2004 in nature entitled “Improved precipitation due to aerosol effects” documented how increased aerosols improve the formation of clouds and intensify the precipitation, especially in urban environments.
In addition, the American Meteorological Society has long recognized this phenomenon. In 2007, the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology published a paper about “urban influences on cloud and precipitation”, in which cities can create their own microclimate, which influence the local rainfall both in height and intensity. None of these well -established mechanisms are based on global climate change to explain urban precipitation trends.
We also do not forget the role of the cloud of clouds in weather modification – a practice that intentionally introduces particles into the atmosphere to improve the rainfall. The fact that urban areas do this unintentionally through pollution indicates that precipitation trends in these areas are induced far away from purely “natural” or “climate change”.
The incorrect analysis of CC ignores the basic known urban meteorology. The article from CC is therefore a misguided narrative that is driven by model speculations. Their narrative-dass of climate change us the rainstorms of the city worsened to selective data and ignores both the established urban heat effect and the precipitation function of the aerosols. It is like blaming the weather while ignoring the infection and causing it. By omitting these critical factors, they present an alarmist view that is too simplified, which serves more political goals than the scientific truth.
This type of poor research on media consumption undermines public trust in climate science. CC claims to be an authority, but her work shows a consistent pattern: cherry data, ignore contradictory evidence and accuse people with the help of fossil fuels that cause climate change. Real Science looks at all variables, especially those that are so obvious as localized urban heating and pollution. Until Climate Central recognizes these basic factors, they do not report on science – they are turning a fake news story.
Anthony Watts
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for the environment and climate at the Heartland Institute. Watts has been working as an on-air TV in the weather business and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instruments and papers prepared together with specialist problems. He operates the most viewed website of the world in the climate, the award -winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Quote in the climateREALISM
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
Comments are closed.