Urban rainfall in the climate center claims to be wet – Watt?

On March 26, 2025, the title is “Heavier rainfall in U.S. cities,” the Climate Center (CC) claims, “climate change is enhancing the water cycle, bringing heavier rainfall extremes and associated flood risks throughout the United States”, a conclusion that is misleading at best, and that the worst evidence is scientifically irresponsible when properly examined.

“As the climate of climate change warms, it can accommodate more water vapor, resulting in downpours, especially in urban areas,” the CC claims. Local urban meteorological factors that are not related to climate change are easy to explain.

First, the CC article proposes a common logical fallacy in the climate report: mistakenly considering causality. Yes, some cities have recorded strong rainfall increases in recent decades, but this is not the smoking gun you believe in artificially driven climate change. quite, climate Provides a more comprehensive and subtle assessment of precipitation trends, demonstrating national rainfall in the United States no Increased in shocking or unprecedented ways. In fact, the entrance to precipitation in the United States shows that despite a slight increase in total precipitation over the last century, there is no consistent trend in rainfall matching the promoted hysteria.

Worse, CC completely ignores the well-documented urban heat island (UHI) effect in its articles. Due to the reduced supply properties of asphalt, concrete and vegetation, cities are warmer than the surrounding rural areas, a fundamental principle for decades.

A leading figure mentioned by the CC is Reno, Nevada, which believes the city has seen a 37% increase in rainfall since 1970. An easy experiment conducted by Anthony Watts in 2008 finally proved the city’s powerful UHI signature, as follows:

Warm urban surfaces create more local convection, which in turn can drive more thunderstorms and precipitation activities in the city core. Ironically, CC has an entire section of a website dedicated to UHI in U.S. cities, without the articles claiming climate change “enhanced water cycles” and rainfall in cities.

CC ignores UHI factors that enhance rainfall –In articles specifically targeting urban rainfall trends– Not just supervision. This is obvious news and scientific malfeasance.

CC completely avoids another major mechanism: urban air pollution. The city is equipped with particulate matter from vehicles, industries and heating systems. These particles serve as condensation nuclei – water vapor condenses, forming clouds and enhancing precipitation. This is not new or controversial science. A 2004 study nature Titled “Increased Precipitation Due to Aerosol Effects,” demonstrates how aerosol increase enhances cloud formation and aggravates rainfall, especially in urban environments.

In addition, the American Meteorological Society has long recognized this phenomenon. AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climate A paper on “The Effects of Cities on Clouds and Precipitation” was published in 2007, highlighting how cities create their own microclimates that affect local rainfall, both in quantity and intensity. None of these good mechanisms relies on global climate change to explain urban-specific rainfall trends.

We also don’t forget the role of cloud seeds in weather modification, which intentionally introduces particulate matter into the atmosphere to enhance rainfall. The fact that urban areas do this inadvertently through pollution suggests that the rainfall trends in these areas are far from purely “natural” or “climate change.”

The defect analysis of CC ignores the basically well-known urban meteorology. Therefore, CC's article is a misleading narrative driven by model speculation. Their narrative – climate change makes our urban rainstorms worse – conveniently ignores the recognized urban heat island effect and the rain-enhancing effects of aerosols based on selective data. It's like blaming a fever in the weather and ignoring the infection caused. By omitting these key factors, they present an oversimplified, dangerous view that serves political purposes rather than scientific truths.

This false research used for media consumption undermines public trust in climate science. The CC claims to be an authority, but their work shows a consistent pattern: Cherries pick data, ignore conflicting evidence, and use fossil fuels to cause climate change, blame everything on humans. Real scientific considerations all variables, especially variables as obvious as local urban heating and pollution. They didn't report science until Calimate Central acknowledged these fundamental factors – they spin the narrative of fake news.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior researcher in the Environment and Climate at the Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business in front of and behind the camera since 1978 and currently broadcast forecasts are being made every day. He created a weather graphics demonstration system for television, professional weather instruments, and co-authored a peer-reviewed paper on climate issues. He runs the most viewed website in the world on the award-winning site wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally published in ClimateRealism

Related