You can though. The amount of precipitation (averaged over a long enough period of time) is inversely proportional to the amount of evaporation and other water entering the atmosphere (averaged over a long enough period of time). Note that the two things being compared are _rates_ not _masses_. If all you do is cause water to fall sooner then:
1. The humidity in the air drops, increasing evaporation rates because of the lower partial pressure of water vapor in the air.
2. The humidity on the surface increases (dusty areas becoming moist, plant leaves uncurling to expose more surface area for other processes but incidentally increasing evaporation rates, reservoirs having more surface area, ...), increasing the evaporation rate.
There are limits of course, and that back-of-the-napkin analysis ignores 2nd-order changes in temperature and all of the other hairier bits of climate modeling, but it illustrates that things are more complicated than they appear anwyway.
Edit: "inverse" here just meaning a multiplication by -1
1. The humidity in the air drops, increasing evaporation rates because of the lower partial pressure of water vapor in the air.
2. The humidity on the surface increases (dusty areas becoming moist, plant leaves uncurling to expose more surface area for other processes but incidentally increasing evaporation rates, reservoirs having more surface area, ...), increasing the evaporation rate.
There are limits of course, and that back-of-the-napkin analysis ignores 2nd-order changes in temperature and all of the other hairier bits of climate modeling, but it illustrates that things are more complicated than they appear anwyway.
Edit: "inverse" here just meaning a multiplication by -1