Lima isn't in the Atacama Desert, it's just that Lima is in an area of very little precipitation. Weirder is that it's coastal and (almost) equatorial, but never very hot.
The answer is Humboldt maritime current. As it carries cold waters, it reduces the capacity of water to evaporate, and consequently there is little clouds. But, as it is still close to the sea, it has stable temperatures, with low variation through the days and through the year.
All cities might be. Not all cities are. The point is that to some it might seem counter-intuitive to think of a city next to water as in a desert. But if it doesn't get much rainfall a coastal area can still technically be a desert.
I guess Casablanca is not in a desert? It certainly feels like a desert there. I have never been there, but I went on street view on Google Maps and it feels like a desert, but if you go on the satellite you can see it's not in a desert I guess.
I wonder whether this wouldn't be better called 'World's Driest Cities' as many of these would never be regarded by those who know them as being in deserts. I mean how could the legendarily soggy Nile delta be seen as a desert?
Lots of deserts receive rainfall at occasional times. Especially anywhere coastal along the Indian ocean, such as coastal Yemen, Oman, or Iran. Central Australia is a known desert but floods annually.
Alice Springs, in the middle of Australia and 275mm/year of rain, is obviously very little but is arguably more desertic than Santiago, due to its higher average tempature and its summer rainfall pattern (like Karachi).
What I mean is that rainfall alone is not a very good indicator at indicating wether a place is desertic or not.
I think that Santiago should be removed. True that the weather station at the airport records just 221.5mm of rainfall per year but precipitation varies quite widely across the city - 438mm at Quebrada de Macul. My Geography teacher at school taught me that it has a Mediterranean climate.
Much further north from Santiago is the Atacama Desert, so a better choice would be Arica, Iquique, or Antofagasta. Santiago is more close to Patagonia, than anything else.
I was thinking Baghdad couldn't be here cause of the fertile crescent, but I don't know why I thought that as I had already put damascus, and Cairo which is also on a river valley
Odd choices... yet no mention of the Gobi Desert (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia), Thar Desert (Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, India), or maybe Islamabad and Karachi, Pakistan. Even Ahmedabad, India, is considered a coastal desert... Muscat (Oman), Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (Israel), Beirut (Lebanon), multiple cities in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, etc.
Aren't all cities? :)
Birmingham, AL (a little creek is present though)
Would have never considered Phoenix or Damascus because they are small in comparison... Didn't realize that the urban ares were considered 🤦🏼♂️
Guess I was wrong lol
Santiago de Chile is missing (pop. 5,220,161, rainfall 221.5mm/year), while Karachi is among the answers despite 318mm/year in rainfall.
Alice Springs, in the middle of Australia and 275mm/year of rain, is obviously very little but is arguably more desertic than Santiago, due to its higher average tempature and its summer rainfall pattern (like Karachi).
What I mean is that rainfall alone is not a very good indicator at indicating wether a place is desertic or not.