An enormous body of other evidence points to the same conclusion. It indicates that while the average climate of the present is drier than that of the past in regions having the Mediterranean type of winter rains and summer droughts, there have been pronounced pulsations during historic times so that at certain times there has actually been greater aridity than at present. This conclusion is so important that it seems advisable to examine the only important arguments that have been raised against it, especially against the idea that the general rainfall of the eastern Mediterranean was greater in the historic past than at present. The first objection is the unquestionable fact that droughts and famines have occurred at periods which seem on other evidence to have been moister than the present. This argument has been much used, but it seems to have little force. If the rainfall of a given region averages thirty inches and varies from fifteen to forty-five, a famine will ensue if the rainfall drops for a few years to the lower limit and does not rise much above twenty for a few years. If the climate of the place changes during the course of centuries, so that the rainfall averages only twenty inches, and ranges from seven to thirty-five, famine will again ensue if the rainfall remains near ten inches for a few years. The ravages of the first famine might be as bad as those of the second. They might even be worse, because when the rainfall is larger the population is likely to be greater and the distress due to scarcity of food would affect a larger number of people. Hence historic records of famines and droughts do not indicate that the climate was either drier or moister than at present. They merely show that at the time in question the climate was drier than the normal for that particular period.