Your Weather, Our Weather (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

Since June we (East Texas) have been running mid 90s to low 100sF (32-40C) with with hear indexes about 110F, lows of 85F (29C) at night. A high pressure dome of heat parked over the Central US bringing no rain (at least to Texas) for several weeks and high temps. Comparing F to C. I prefer the spread of F over C, but consider I grew up with F. A recent trip to Corpus Christi we saw large large fields of immature brown/dead corn.
An alarming report is that the Oceans are turning green (more plant matter growing) due to the rise of temps, sharks are reported as dying. Another report said that El Niño usually causes a reduction of Atlantic hurricane activity, but with oceans heating up, that may change.

I never thought I would be living in such a transitional period for the Earth. We have been warned for 40 years, yet as a species, we just blunder along until we are smacked upside the head.

 

[bird]

These tweets couldn't be from real people! I refuse to believe that there are people out there are that stupid.

I hate to break it to you but, yes, there are people that stupid out there. Also that gullible. Conspiracy theories are, imo, a defense mechanism when people confront things that either attack their belief structures or appear to be beyond their comprehension.

It is flocking depressing.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A rightwing organization is attacking efforts to educate judges about the climate crisis. The group appears to be connected to Leonard Leo, the architect of the rightwing takeover of the American judiciary who helped select Trump’s supreme court nominees, the Guardian has learned.

The Washington DC-based non-profit Environmental Law Institute (Eli)’s Climate Judiciary Project holds seminars for lawyers and judges about the climate crisis.

It aims to “provide neutral, objective information to the judiciary about the science of climate change as it is understood by the expert scientific community and relevant to current and future litigation”, according to Eli’s website.

The American Energy Institute (AEI), a rightwing, pro-fossil fuel thinktank, has been attacking Eli and their climate trainings in recent months. In August, the organization published a report saying Eli was “corruptly influencing the courts and destroying the rule of law to promote questionable climate science”.


Eli’s Climate Judiciary Project is “falsely portraying itself as a neutral entity teaching judges about questionable climate science”, the report says. In reality, AEI claims, the project is a partner to the more than two dozen US cities and states who are suing big oil for allegedly sowing doubt about the climate crisis despite longstanding knowledge of the climate dangers of coal, oil and gas usage.

In a PowerPoint presentation about the report found on AEI’s website, the group says the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) is a “wholly aligned with the climate change plaintiffs and helps them corruptly influence judges behind closed doors”.

“Their true purpose is to preview the plaintiffs’ arguments in the climate cases in an ex parte setting,” the presentation says.……

Leonard Leo-linked group attacking efforts to educate judges on climate

Rightwing US thinktank claimed in report that non-profit holding trainings is ‘corruptly influencing the courts’

www.theguardian.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

The last high end G5 storm didn't appear do as much damage as a wildfires of the kind we are having around here are.

We haven't had a high end G5 storm for a long time. Which one are you talking about? If you mean the one this year, that was a low end G5. A much more powerful G5 just barely missed us several years ago. Eventually, we will get hit with one.

I say focus on climate change and social issues.

I say focus on all of the above. We are fully capable of walking and chewing gum. The only reason we don't is because of mindsets like you're demonstrating on this issue. It's narrow minded and unnecessarily dangerous in my opinion. It's the mindset that allows so many avoidable catastrophes to occur. History is littered with rapidly collapsed civilizations who thought, "it's never going to happen."

 

[LA - L.A.]

The American Energy Institute (AEI), a rightwing, pro-fossil fuel thinktank, has been attacking Eli and their climate trainings in recent months. In August, the organization published a report saying Eli was “corruptly influencing the courts and destroying the rule of law to promote questionable climate science”.

Leonard Leo-linked group attacking efforts to educate judges on climate

Rightwing US thinktank claimed in report that non-profit holding trainings is ‘corruptly influencing the courts’

www.theguardian.com

Every accusation is a confession. Leo gets it. If you want to fix the game, then you need the referees in your pocket, not the players. That's why he's so upset that another group is trying to get judges out of his pocket.

 

[bird]

Every accusation is a confession. Leo gets it. If you want to fix the game, then you need to the referees in your pocket, not the players. That's why he's so upset that another group is trying to get judges out of his pocket.

Yup. Legislative capture, regulatory capture and judicial capture.

 

[SamAndreas]

We haven't had a high end G5 storm for a long time. Which one are you talking about? If you mean the one this year, that was a low end G5. A much more powerful G5 just barely missed us several years ago. Eventually, we will get hit with one.


I say focus on all of the above. We are fully capable of walking and chewing gum. The only reason we don't is because of mindsets like you're demonstrating on this issue. It's narrow minded and unnecessarily dangerous in my opinion. It's the mindset that allows so many avoidable catastrophes to occur. History is littered with rapidly collapsed civilizations who thought, "it's never going to happen."

This article seems to cover it well, filling in real where there is real and deflecting some of the histarria factor.

It's about the way I view it. And I view current grid upgrades which are going in now at a feverish pitch to harden grid so it doesn't start fires will also strengthen the grid for solar storms.

If they power the grid down before a really bad solar storm it will protect the grid even more. A few power outages here and there are not a disaster. I know this because they turn off my grid when the fire risk grows too high with high winds. I have perhaps 40 hours a year with the power turned off. It's not a disaster to have a safety shut down of the grid.

So there's that way to deal with it as well. Turn off the power to protect the ability to transmit power when the storm is over.

The Strongest Solar Storm in 20 Years Was Mostly Harmless, but We May Not Be So Lucky Next Time

Years of careful planning helped safeguard against last weekend’s severe space weather, but we still don’t know how we’d cope with a monster event

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

This article seems to cover it well, filling in real where there is real and deflecting some of the histarria factor.

That's not really what the article says. In fact, the entire clearly states that the recent solar storm is not nearly as strong as what's going to hit us in the future. There's a lot more denial on your end than there is "histeria" on my end. Here's some quotes from the article you linked that contradict what you keep saying:

"But while we’ve passed our biggest test yet, experts say now is not the time to let down our guard: the question of more cataclysmic solar activity isn’t a matter of “if” but “when.”​

​

"...the weekend’s storm was “nowhere close” to the strength of more powerful known historical events."​

​

"At present, it’s difficult to say just how close we came to catastrophe because many companies—from grid controllers to satellite operators—do not like to reveal information on how a geomagnetic storm affected them, says Daniel Welling, a climate and space scientist at the University of Michigan. “They don’t want to look like they’re vulnerable,” he says."​

​

"Similar precautions were likely taken at other power grids around the world, too, although the lack of information makes it “tremendously” difficult to know how effective those measures were, Welling says."​

​

"While big, this storm is not the extent of what we can expect to face in the coming decades—or perhaps much sooner as the sun heads toward the peak of its 11-year activity cycle in 2025."​

​

"The most powerful recorded geomagnetic storms in history, the Carrington Event of 1859 and the New York Railroad Storm of 1921, both registered at around –900 nT, although the former was potentially as high as –1,750 nT. Last weekend’s storm came in at a more sedate –412 nT, Dahl says. “Even though this was historic, it was nowhere close to the level of 1921 and 1859,” he says."​

The conclusion is we got lucky it wasn't a stronger storm and we really don't know how much damage it did or didn't do to the world's grids. People in the article repeatedly say we can't stop preparing and improving.

It's about the way I view it. And I view current grid upgrades which are going in now at a feverish pitch to harden grid so it doesn't start fires will also strengthen the grid for solar storms.

What specific upgrades are they doing that you think will make the grid less vulnerable to a severe electromagnetic/solar storm? Most of what they are doing is upgrading hooks and other support structures that transmission lines hang from to prevent the lines from falling and causing a fire.geomagnetic/solar storms. Nothing else they are doing to prevent fires will harden the grid against more severe geomagnetic/solar storms.

What specifcally do you know that they are doing that you think will protect the grid from more sever solar storms? Everything I read says that partically none of the power grids on the planet are upgrading them to protect them from more severe solar storms.

What specifically do you know power companies are doing that experts in the field do not know that the power companies are doing?

If they power the grid down before a really bad solar storm it will protect the grid even more.

That worked during the most recent storm, because it was much less severe than the solar storms that are coming. For the more severe solar storms roughly 75% of the planet's power grids would have to be powered down from dawn to dusk for about 4 consecutive days.

That in itself will create a cascading catastrophe from the disruption that it would cause. We don't even know if that will work to prevent damage from the more severe solar storms we will be hit with.

A few power outages here and there are not a disaster.

Hundreds to thousands across the planet are. You keep unrealistically minimizing the actual scale of impact that scientists who study this are warning us about. It reminds me of people who get through a diminishing Category 1 hurricane mostly unscathed telling themselves, "people make a bigger deal out of the impact of hurricanes than they really have."

I know this because they turn off my grid when the fire risk grows too high with high winds.

For how many people for how many days? You're not realistic at all about the scale of disruption created by more severe solar storms. The power shut down would not be limited to just your neck of the woods. It would be planet wide and last from dawn to dusk for around 4 days.

Imagine what would happen if just 75% of the US turned off it's power grid from dawn to dusk for four straight days. That in itself would set off a catastrophic cascade of events. Now, scale that up to 75% of the planet.

I have perhaps 40 hours a year with the power turned off. It's not a disaster to have a safety shut down of the grid.

For almost the whole planet for several days, it absolutely is a disaster at a scale we've never seen before. It's amazing you don't understand that.

So there's that way to deal with it as well. Turn off the power to protect the ability to transmit power when the storm is over.

This isn't a storm that passes through a small geographic area in a few hours. It's a planet wide storm that lasts for four days on average.

Bottom line, it's not a problem that we have to fear if we take preventative measures now. If we don't take those prevantive measures now, then it's a matter of when the catastrophe strikes, not if. The article you quoted says as much.

The Strongest Solar Storm in 20 Years Was Mostly Harmless, but We May Not Be So Lucky Next Time

Years of careful planning helped safeguard against last weekend’s severe space weather, but we still don’t know how we’d cope with a monster event

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[SamAndreas]

That's not really what the article says. In fact, the entire clearly states that the recent solar storm is not nearly as strong as what's going to hit us in the future. There's a lot more denial on your end than there is "histeria" on my end. Here's some quotes from the article you linked that contradict what you keep saying:

"But while we’ve passed our biggest test yet, experts say now is not the time to let down our guard: the question of more cataclysmic solar activity isn’t a matter of “if” but “when.”​

​

"...the weekend’s storm was “nowhere close” to the strength of more powerful known historical events."​

​

"At present, it’s difficult to say just how close we came to catastrophe because many companies—from grid controllers to satellite operators—do not like to reveal information on how a geomagnetic storm affected them, says Daniel Welling, a climate and space scientist at the University of Michigan. “They don’t want to look like they’re vulnerable,” he says."​

​

"Similar precautions were likely taken at other power grids around the world, too, although the lack of information makes it “tremendously” difficult to know how effective those measures were, Welling says."​

​

"While big, this storm is not the extent of what we can expect to face in the coming decades—or perhaps much sooner as the sun heads toward the peak of its 11-year activity cycle in 2025."​

​

"The most powerful recorded geomagnetic storms in history, the Carrington Event of 1859 and the New York Railroad Storm of 1921, both registered at around –900 nT, although the former was potentially as high as –1,750 nT. Last weekend’s storm came in at a more sedate –412 nT, Dahl says. “Even though this was historic, it was nowhere close to the level of 1921 and 1859,” he says."​

The conclusion is we got lucky it wasn't a stronger storm and we really don't know how much damage it did or didn't do to the world's grids. People in the article repeatedly say we can't stop preparing and improving.


What specific upgrades are they doing that you think will make the grid less vulnerable to a severe electromagnetic/solar storm? Most of what they are doing is upgrading hooks and other support structures that transmission lines hang from to prevent the lines from falling and causing a fire.geomagnetic/solar storms. Nothing else they are doing to prevent fires will harden the grid against more severe geomagnetic/solar storms.

What specifcally do you know that they are doing that you think will protect the grid from more sever solar storms? Everything I read says that partically none of the power grids on the planet are upgrading them to protect them from more severe solar storms.

What specifically do you know power companies are doing that experts in the field do not know that the power companies are doing?


That worked during the most recent storm, because it was much less severe than the solar storms that are coming. For the more severe solar storms roughly 75% of the planet's power grids would have to be powered down from dawn to dusk for about 4 consecutive days.

That in itself will create a cascading catastrophe from the disruption that it would cause. We don't even know if that will work to prevent damage from the more severe solar storms we will be hit with.

Hundreds to thousands across the planet are. You keep unrealistically minimizing the actual scale of impact that scientists who study this are warning us about. It reminds me of people who get through a diminishing Category 1 hurricane mostly unscathed telling themselves, "people make a bigger deal out of the impact of hurricanes than they really have."


For how many people for how many days? You're not realistic at all about the scale of disruption created by more severe solar storms. The power shut down would not be limited to just your neck of the woods. It would be planet wide and last from dawn to dusk for around 4 days.

Imagine what would happen if just 75% of the US turned off it's power grid from dawn to dusk for four straight days. That in itself would set off a catastrophic cascade of events. Now, scale that up to 75% of the planet.


For almost the whole planet for several days, it absolutely is a disaster at a scale we've never seen before. It's amazing you don't understand that.


This isn't a storm that passes through a small geographic area in a few hours. It's a planet wide storm that lasts for four days on average.

Bottom line, it's not a problem that we have to fear if we take preventative measures now. If we don't take those prevantive measures now, then it's a matter of when the catastrophe strikes, not if. The article you quoted says as much.

I don't do this multi-quote split it apart thing.

The article didn't catalog any grid disruptions which did more than cause minor inconvenience.

You appears to think four days of power being off during the day time to weather a bad solar storm is a major thing. It isn't, I go through four day periods of power off due to fire risk where it is off both day and night.

The current rebuilding of our grid here involved new poles, new cross bars at the top which are made of metal instead of wood and new insulators. They are installing a lot more surge resistors, and switches they can open and close from the office through network control. They can shut off and isolate grid sections to minimize the factor of long wire lengths crossing great distances.

They already have the ability to open an additional switch at every service meter from their office network, which will isolate houses from the grid so that a surge coming in from the line will not damage things in a home.

They are also putting quite a bit of the grid underground. Where those very high fire risk areas exist they are burying the lines under the county roads.

All of this is directly helpful insofar as dealing with real present danger the fire risk, while also serendipitously dealing with the possible solar storm risk as a serendipitous by product.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't do this multi-quote split it apart thing.

The article didn't catalog any grid disruptions which did more than cause minor inconvenience.

The article clearly stated that the power companies are known for not reporting any problems or damage. I directly quoted that part of the article.

You appears to think four days of power being off during the day time to weather a bad solar storm is a major thing.

When it happens across half the planet at the same time, it's a major thing. You're thinking local and small region only. That's minor. When it spread across half the planet, it very much becomes a major thing.

The current rebuilding of our grid here involved new poles, new cross bars at the top which are made of metal instead of wood and new insulators. They are installing a lot more surge resistors, and switches they can open and close from the office through network control. They can shut off and isolate grid sections to minimize the factor of long wire lengths crossing great distances.

They already have the ability to open an additional switch at every service meter from their office network, which will isolate houses from the grid so that a surge coming in from the line will not damage things in a home.

They are also putting quite a bit of the grid underground. Where those very high fire risk areas exist they are burying the lines under the county roads.

As I said, they are making improvements to avoid structural failures that start fires. That's all they are doing.

All of this is directly helpful insofar as dealing with real present danger the fire risk,

That part is completely true.

...while also serendipitously dealing with the possible solar storm risk as a serendipitous by product.

That part is completely false. You just keep repeating the same falsehoods as if that makes them true. It does not.

You don't seem to understand the physics of how geomagnetic/solar storms damage power grids. I've posted scientific explanations, but you just keep ignoring the actual science and I suspect you will continue to ignore it, so I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing this with you.

 

[SamAndreas]

The article clearly stated that the power companies are known for not reporting any problems or damage. I directly quoted that part of the article.


When it happens across half the planet at the same time, it's a major thing. You're thinking local and small region only. That's minor. When it spread across half the planet, it very much becomes a major thing.


As I said, they are making improvements to avoid structural failures that start fires. That's all they are doing.


That part is completely true.


That part is completely false. You just keep repeating the same falsehoods as if that makes them true. It does not.

You don't seem to understand the physics of how geomagnetic/solar storms damage power grids. I've posted scientific explanations, but you just keep ignoring the actual science and I suspect you will continue to ignore it, so I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing this with you.

I think the difference between you and me, is I'm a retired steamfitter fellow who happens to hold a bachelor's degree in Physics.
I worked with electrical process controls, and large motors, which were tied to the electrical power grid for most of my life.

I have set and hooked up ten thousand horsepower motors. Six of them. They were the compressor motors for a 36 inch CO2 slurry pipeline 600 miles long. From Southwestern Colorado to Texas.


What have you done?


I think you're heavily invested in science fiction.

I'm also wondering if you're a person who I interacted with, and liked for about ten years at a site called Radio Free Liberals.

Don't get me wrong, I like you. But I think you're heavily invested in science fiction insofar as this topic.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think the difference between you and me, is I'm a retired steamfitter fellow who happens to hold a bachelor's degree in Physics.
I worked with electrical process controls, and large motors, which were tied to the electrical power grid for most of my life.

I have set and hooked up ten thousand horsepower motors. Six of them. They were the compressor motors for a 36 inch CO2 slurry pipeline 600 miles long. From Southwestern Colorado to Texas.


What have you done?

What you and I have done has no relevance in this discussion, because neither one of us are experts in the area of geomagnetic/solar storms. I've been quoting the actual experts to you and you keep ignoring it and it seems to me you think you know better than the actual experts in this field.

I never claimed to be the expert in this area and I know that I'm not. I do know enough to recognize who's an expert and who isn't. I've been quoting the actual experts in this area. You have been disagreeing with, dismissing and ignoring what I've quoted from the actual experts in this area.

I think you're heavily invested in science fiction.

I picked up on that several posts ago. I'm okay with it.

I'm also wondering if you're a person who I interacted with, and liked for about ten years at a site called Radio Free Liberals.

Nope. This is the first I've heard of Radio Free Liberals and this is the only site I share some of my thoughts on.

Don't get me wrong, I like you.

Okay. I generally like what you write, even when I don't agree with it.

But I think you're heavily invested in science fiction insofar as this topic.

Again, I picked up on that several posts ago. I'm okay with it.

 

[MT15]

Two part tweet. Schlapp is such an idiot, as are most theo bro science deniers. And I never understood the resistance to trying to accomplish the goals of people who are warning us about climate change. They’re great goals that will benefit humans.

 

[coldseat]

Two part tweet. Schlapp is such an idiot, as are most theo bro science deniers. And I never understood the resistance to trying to accomplish the goals of people who are warning us about climate change. They’re great goals that will benefit humans.

What we would lose is our corporations rights to pollute the earth for financial gain without government restriction. That's what they're really fighting for.

 

[Optimus Prime]

It begins each day at nightfall. As the light disappears, billions of zooplankton, crustaceans and other marine organisms rise to the ocean surface to feed on microscopic algae, returning to the depths at sunrise.

The waste from this frenzy – Earth’s largest migration of creatures – sinks to the ocean floor, removing millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere each year.

This activity is one of thousands of natural processes that regulate the Earth’s climate. Together, the planet’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks absorb about half of all human emissions.

But as the Earth heats up, scientists are increasingly concerned that those crucial processes are breaking down.

In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings by an international team of researchers show the amount of carbon absorbed by land has temporarily collapsed.

The final result was that forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.

There are warning signs at sea, too. Greenland’s glaciers and Arctic ice sheets are melting faster than expected, which is disrupting the Gulf Stream ocean current and slows the rate at which oceans absorb carbon.

For the algae-eating zooplankton, melting sea ice is exposing them to more sunlight – a shift scientists say could keep them in the depths for longer, disrupting the vertical migration that stores carbon on the ocean floor.

“We’re seeing cracks in the resilience of the Earth’s systems. We’re seeing massive cracks on land – terrestrial ecosystems are losing their carbon store and carbon uptake capacity, but the oceans are also showing signs of instability,” Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told an event at New York Climate Week in September.

“Nature has so far balanced our abuse. This is coming to an end,” he said………

Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing?

The sudden collapse of carbon sinks was not factored into climate models – and could rapidly accelerate global heating

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lapaz]

I was wondering how the occurrence of category 5 hurricanes has changed over the decades. Here is what CBS has:
20s: 2
30s: 6
40s: 1
50s: 2
60s: 5
70s: 3
80s: 3
90s: 2
00s: 8
10s: 6
20s so far: 4

Here's how many Category 5 hurricanes have hit the mainland U.S.

While multiple hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. peaked at Category 5, only four storms on record have done so at that intensity.

www.cbsnews.com

There were a few quiet decades, but the tropics have gotten very active since 2003. The trend is clearly getting worse from a wind intensity perspective. However the trend isn't clearly getting worse when measured by millibars. The worst decade on that measure was the 1960s, and the worse in history was in 1935.

The strongest hurricanes to hit the US mainland and other tropical cyclone records

Idalia is the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Florida's Apalachee Bay region ever on record. Here is a look at the most powerful storms to hit the U.S. mainland.

abcnews.go.com

Here are the top 10 over the decades:
1880s: 1
1910s: 2
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1960s: 3
1990s: 1
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
2020s: 1

There seems to be an increasing frequency of highly intense hurricanes, but it isn't as clear that they are becoming more intense. The 3rd and 4th most intense have occurred in the last 20 years, so were the top 2 just statistical anomalies?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting

I’m sure this will get quite a right wing response
================

Melani Callicott, a human biology major at the University of California, San Diego, thinks about the climate crisis all the time. She discusses it with family and friends because of the intensity of hurricanes like Milton and Helene, which have ravaged the southern US, she says. “It just seems like it’s affecting more people every day.”

That’s one reason why she is glad that UC San Diego has implemented an innovative graduation requirement for students starting this autumn: a course in climate change.

Courses must cover at least 30% climate-related content and address two of four areas, including scientific foundations, human impacts, mitigation strategies and project-based learning. About 7,000 students from the class of 2028 will be affected this year.

“The most important thing is that UC San Diego wants to make sure we’re preparing students for the future that they really will encounter,” says Sarah Gille, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who was part of the committee to create the new plan.

The requirement won’t add any time to a student’s graduation schedule – it’s designed to be integrated into existing classwork. Forty one-quarter courses meet the goal, including “The Astronomy of Climate Change”, “Gender and Climate Justice”, “Indigenous Approaches to Climate Change” and “Environmentalism in Arts and Media”.

Many of the classes that fall under the climate requirement overlap with courses that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion, the school says…….

A US university has a new requirement to graduate: take a climate change course

UC San Diego has added an innovative prerequisite to ‘prepare students for the future they really will encounter’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

More than half the world’s food production will be at risk of failure within the next 25 years as a rapidly accelerating water crisis grips the planet, unless urgent action is taken to conserve water resources and end the destruction of the ecosystems on which our fresh water depends, experts have warned in a landmark review.

Half the world’s population already faces water scarcity, and that number is set to rise as the climate crisis worsens, according to a report from the Global Commission on the Economics of Waterpublished on Thursday.

Demand for fresh water will outstrip supply by 40% by the end of the decade, because the world’s water systems are being put under “unprecedented stress”, the report found.

The commission found that governments and experts have vastly underestimated the amount of water needed for people to have decent lives.

While 50 to 100 litres a day are required for each person’s health and hygiene, in fact people require about 4,000 litres a day in order to have adequate nutrition and a dignified life.

For most regions, that volume cannot be achieved locally, so people are dependent on trade – in food, clothing and consumer goods – to meet their needs.

Some countries benefit more than others from “green water”, which is soil moisture that is necessary for food production, as opposed to “blue water” from rivers and lakes.

The report found that water moves around the world in “atmospheric rivers” which transport moisture from one region to another.

About half the world’s rainfall over land comes from healthy vegetation in ecosystems that transpires water back into the atmosphere and generates clouds that then move downwind.

China and Russia are the main beneficiaries of these “atmospheric river” systems, while India and Brazil are the major exporters, as their landmass supports the flow of green water to other regions.

Between 40% and 60% of the source of fresh water rainfall is generated from neighbouring land use.

“The Chinese economy depends on sustainable forest management in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and the Baltic region,” said Prof Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the co-chairs of the commission.

“You can make the same case for Brazil supplying fresh water to Argentina. This interconnectedness just shows that we have to place fresh water in the global economy as a global common good.”……..

Global water crisis leaves half of world food production at risk in next 25 years

Landmark review says urgent action needed to conserve resources and save ecosystems that supply fresh water

www.theguardian.com

 

[Taurus]

I was wondering how the occurrence of category 5 hurricanes has changed over the decades. Here is what CBS has:
20s: 2
30s: 6
40s: 1
50s: 2
60s: 5
70s: 3
80s: 3
90s: 2
00s: 8
10s: 6
20s so far: 4

Here's how many Category 5 hurricanes have hit the mainland U.S.

While multiple hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. peaked at Category 5, only four storms on record have done so at that intensity.

www.cbsnews.com

There were a few quiet decades, but the tropics have gotten very active since 2003. The trend is clearly getting worse from a wind intensity perspective. However the trend isn't clearly getting worse when measured by millibars. The worst decade on that measure was the 1960s, and the worse in history was in 1935.

The strongest hurricanes to hit the US mainland and other tropical cyclone records

Idalia is the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Florida's Apalachee Bay region ever on record. Here is a look at the most powerful storms to hit the U.S. mainland.

abcnews.go.com

Here are the top 10 over the decades:
1880s: 1
1910s: 2
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1960s: 3
1990s: 1
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
2020s: 1

There seems to be an increasing frequency of highly intense hurricanes, but it isn't as clear that they are becoming more intense. The 3rd and 4th most intense have occurred in the last 20 years, so were the top 2 just statistical anomalies?

Considering the phenomenon is *Global* warming, you'd want to look at typhoons and tropical cyclones as well.