For years the Climate Cultists have been trying to scare New Englanders about droughts. As we point out often, the problem is that New England and New Hampshire have been in a decades-long, record-setting wet period. What to do? Invent something called Flash-Droughts.
Flash floods are older than human life on earth and occur when lots of accumulated moisture falls out of the atmosphere in a short period of time. Too much water, and you get flooding. Too much too soon, and you get flash flooding. Such a pronouncement is serious business in places prone to them, and ignoring them can be fatal.
Fatal, you say?
In 2016, two industrious “researchers” looking for a way to scaremonger recent dry spells created the term Flash Drought to define “relatively short periods of warm surface temperature and anomalously low and rapid decreasing soil moisture.”
Before the fabrication of this new crisis whose only cure (coincidentally) is a centrally planned economy, we called that a hot spell or a dry spell (or both), but that’s not scary enough. The American middle-class will not sacrifice their reasonably comfortable lifestyle to the gods of government so their climate shamans (researchers) can research more scary names for weather events.
The solution is to “print money” to pay them to come up with them anyway.
Flash Droughts are in the same vein as cooling is caused by warming (both of which explain high pollen counts), or how no snow now means more snow or not, so yes, the local climate shamans are on board with flash droughts, and they hope the mojo is powerful.
Hardly, but you have to write about something, or your editor yells at you.
Last year saw visible signs of drought. Here, rocks are exposed with the water level down on the Merrimack River in September 2020. Monitor file I hate to be the bearer of bad climate news but there’s a new weather phenomenon to be worried about: Flash drought.
Translation: Here is another ordinary feature of the weather we’ve found a way to weaponize because the “climate” refuses to cooperate with our dogmatically irrefutable (constantly changing) unchangeable hypothesis about change.
You can read the article at the link, but if you’d like to save some time for about the same result, watch this 18-second clip.