But the Amazon rainforest is also disappearing, with 17% of it already cut down or destroyed and largely replaced with agriculture. Other grave threats, such as oil drilling and illegal mining, continue to whittle it down. The next century may have outsize importance, as the forest could reach a "tipping point."
The answer depends on a number of compounding threats, Bernardo Flores, a researcher with the EqualSea Lab at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, told Live Science.
Encroaching farmland and organized crime are a couple of the problems chipping away at the Amazon. But those work in tandem with what he considers the three main threats: climate change, which can lead to extreme weather events, "like wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons," deforestation and fire.
As the Amazon loses more of its forest, it triggers a feedback loop. "You have less rainfall; then you have less forest, [then] less rainfall, less forest," Flores explained. "That ultimately leads to "a global scale feedback involving the Amazon: More forest loss [leads to] more global warming. More global warming, more forest loss."
As forests get drier, it becomes easier for wildfires to burn more areas. Roads also degrade the forest, and "wherever you have roads, you have people doing illegal activities, illegal logging … then this leads to [more] forest fires," Flores said.
The "arc of deforestation" — a roughly 310,000-square-mile (800,000 square km) border along the Amazon considered the largest deforestation frontier in the world — offers a preview of what much of the Amazon could ultimately look like, according to Flores. The forests that remain there have higher tree mortality and more canopy gaps, and they are often "covered with lianas," or woody vines, that become an ecological problem, he said. Lianas compete with trees for light and nutrients in the soil, and significantly reduce not only a tree's chance of survival but also the overall diversity of trees in a forest. "When the whole forest is covered in lianas, you don't see the forest anymore," he added.
Invasive grasses introduced by cattle farmers will likely proliferate in the decades ahead, but "only a few parts" of the Amazon could become "a savanna, because a savanna is a native, biodiverse ecosystem," he said. Invasive grasses "exclude native species, reduce biodiversity" and would not allow native savanna grasses to replace the forest, Flores said. Instead, one possibility is a "degraded open-canopy ecosystem," where native, naturally fire-tolerant trees, combined with invasive grasses, vines and ferns, proliferate, Flores told Live Science.
Deforestation poses a grave threat to the longevity of the Amazon rainforest. (Image credit: Bloomberg Creative via Getty Images)
Wildlife would quickly be affected as well. Aquatic species are especially vulnerable, Flores said. "When you start having these droughts that will simply last for one, two, three years," wetlands will dry out and become flammable, he explained. That could lead to "very quick extinctions in those areas."
The destruction of the Amazon rainforest would be disastrous for the Indigenous people living there, Christian Poirier, program director of Amazon Watch, an environmental and Indigenous rights advocacy group, told Live Science. "Imagine having your backyard bulldozed and your water source poisoned," he said. "You probably need to move from where you live, and that's exactly what's happening in the Amazon."
A devastated Amazon would also lead to "a more chaotic global climate system," Flores said. There could be less rainfall across parts of South America, and global warming will worsen. Earth could eventually reach a tipping point where ice sheets melt, ocean currents malfunction and the collapse of the Amazon accelerate warming all at once, pushing the planet to "cross the tipping point and transition to a much warmer climate," he said, leading to potentially irreversible consequences.
Unlike other major climate risks, such as the potential of the Greenland Ice Sheet melting and contributing to sea level rise, deforestation can in theory be reversed more easily by reforestation, said Arie Staal, an assistant professor of ecosystem resilience at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
"That gives us a knob to turn that we don't have for other possible tipping points on Earth," he told Live Science. "It is clear that we really need to stop deforestation in the Amazon. And there's hope."
Editor's note: This article was updated at 6:23 p.m. EDT on June 22 to fix the conversion of roughly 310,000 square miles to 800,000 square kilometers.
Rainforest quiz: Can you sort the largest rainforests on Earth?
Roughly five billion. That is the number of Hiroshima-sized bombs it would take to match the energy of a single morning 66 million years ago.
Yes, according to a Physics Today summary of recent impact modelling, “The collision energy was 3 × 1023 J, which is equivalent to about 5 billion Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb explosions.” The figure is a model-derived estimate, and the Hiroshima comparison is illustrative rather than exact but it still does the work of making an unimaginable event somewhat graspable.
The asteroid was about 10 to 15 kilometres in diamater. It struck the northern Yucatán Peninsula and left the Chicxulub crater, a buried scar some 180 kilometres wide. What followed was not a single catastrophic instant but a chain of consequences that played out over hours, months, and years. The story worth telling is less about the strike itself than about how a brief collision became a planetary reset.
The first hours
The immediate physics were brutal. Simulations summarised in the same Physics Today piece indicate that “Within seconds, the impact excavated a hole more than 20 km deep into Earth’s surface and threw bedrock and sediment into the upper atmosphere.” Again, that depth is a simulation result, not a measurement, but it captures the scale of the excavation.
Material did not just fall back where it came from. A 2022 review in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, led by researchers at Imperial College London, synthesised the modelling this way: “Several thousand gigatonnes of asteroidal and target material were ejected at velocities exceeding 5 kilometres per second, forming a fast-moving cloud that transported dust, soot and sulfate aerosols around the Earth within hours.” A regional event became a global one before the day was out.
The long winter that did the killing
The strike was survivable for a great many organisms. The aftermath was not. The Nature Reviews synthesis frames the central mechanism plainly: “These impact ejecta and soot from global wildfires blocked sunlight and caused global cooling, thus explaining the severity and abruptness of the mass extinction.” That cooling likely explains why the extinction was so sharp, though the relative contributions of dust, soot, and sulfate aerosols remain debated.
How long the dark lasted is genuinely unsettled. The same review notes carefully that “it remains uncertain whether this impact winter lasted for many months or for more than a decade.” That uncertainty matters, because the duration is the difference between a lean season and the collapse of nearly every food web on the planet.
The debate over what drove the cooling is still live. A 2016 study in Scientific Reports proposed that soot ejected from the oil-rich rock at the impact site, spread globally through the stratosphere, drove much of the cooling and darkening, placing soot from the impact site itself, not just wildfires, near the front of the killing sequence. More recently, a 2025 Nature Communications paper by Katerina Rodiouchkina and colleagues revised the sulfur estimate sharply downward, suggesting a less prominent role for sulfur emission and a milder impact winter, with implications for which species pulled through the first years after the strike. It is one study, and it conflicts with other modelling that treats sulfur as the main early driver. The precise recipe of the winter is still being worked out.
Who slipped through
The pattern of survival is the part that tends to surprise people. Size was close to a death sentence. The Scientific Reports analysis notes that only about 12% of land-dwelling forms survived, with large-bodied land animals probably almost entirely wiped out. The contrast with the water is striking: around 90% of species in the freshwater assemblage survived, buffered because they relied on detritus rather than the living plants and plankton that the darkness destroyed much of.
Finding the crater, decades later
For years the impact was a hypothesis without a smoking gun. The crater was first detected in the late 1970s by petroleum geophysicists Glen Penfield and Antonio Camargo, but its connection to the extinction was only confirmed around 1990 and 1991, after Alan Hildebrand tied iridium-rich boundary deposits to the buried structure beneath the Yucatán.
The rock record has since been read directly. In 2016, an international drilling project bored into the crater’s peak ring, recovering shocked minerals and impact rocks that confirmed long-modelled details of the collision. As a summary of that work records, the drilling confirmed the peak ring was built from granite ejected within minutes from deep in the Earth.
What the record shows, followed to the end, is quietly disorienting. The event erased three-quarters of life on Earth.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: In May, the federal government announced without warning that it would take apart a network of ocean monitoring systems that it had spent over $350 million to build. No reason was given for the decision to shut down the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), but suspicion immediately focused on the network's role in tracking climate change. But the OOI also provides data that's useful for weather forecasting and fisheries management, leading to widespread opposition. Today, it appears that the opposition has won, as the government will announce that it's reversing the decision. The big remaining question is how much damage the OOI took during the intervening month.
[...] The OOI is a federally supported resource that provides ocean data for use by academic researchers, government planners, and private companies. It consists of arrays of monitoring systems in several locations in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that can track things like currents, salinity, chemical levels, temperatures, and tectonic activity. (There are over 100 individual entries on the page that display the data gathered by the system.) Obviously, there are many potential uses of that data. The fact that it has been gathered continuously for a decade means it can help track changes in how carbon dioxide and heat enter the oceans. This is probably what made it a target for the climate change denialists who helped set the Trump administration's policy.
Those policymakers are perfectly happy to annoy people with environmental concerns, but they apparently neglected to consider how upset everyone else would be about losing access to the other data. The ensuing public backlash led the Senate on Wednesday to unanimously agree with a measure that would block the government from taking down the OOI. Today's decision may indicate that the administration recognized it had gotten itself into a fight it knew it was losing. The National Science Foundation formally announced the decision, stating: "effective immediately, [it] will not proceed with further removal or descoping of equipment from the remaining arrays and will continue operations including planned maintenance." The agency added that it "appreciates the concerns raised by the range of stakeholders that have informed us they rely on data" from the OOI.
The NSF also said it would "issue a Dear Colleague Letter to collect input from stakeholders and convene an expert panel to assess observational needs, evaluate available data sources, consider responses ... and help the agency identify a sustainable path for NSF's ocean observing systems."
Artist’s rendition of the DAPHNE (Dynamic Atmosphere-Ionosphere Explorer) mission concept. The coloring represents auroras and atmospheric waves in Earth’s atmosphere.
Credit: Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics/Mary Tostanoski
NASA selected a mission concept to research how space weather and dynamics within Earth’s atmosphere influence the space environment and help improve prediction capabilities for impacts on crucial technology, such as GPS and low Earth orbit satellites, as well as astronauts in space.
The DAPHNE (Dynamic Atmosphere-Ionosphere Explorer) mission will enter Phase B of development, which includes planning and design for flight and mission operations. It will use identical twin satellites to study how changes in Earth’s lower atmosphere influence our planet’s upper atmosphere, where space weather is manifested.
“NASA is advancing the United States’ leadership as a space weather-ready nation, and by providing new insights into Earth’s atmosphere we can better predict and prepare for impacts in our daily lives on Earth and in space,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters in Washington. “As NASA sends astronauts beyond Earth’s magnetic protection to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, DAPHNE will join the NASA science fleet strategically located across the solar system to provide data that will help mission planners predict and mitigate the effects of space weather for the benefit of all.”
The DAPHNE mission’s low-risk high-return concept will provide coordinated, multi-point measurements of neutral winds, temperature, and composition in the thermosphere. The ionosphere and thermosphere regions are where Earth’s neutral atmosphere transitions into the ionized plasma of space. In this thin shell that surrounds the planet, the atmosphere is in constant motion, shaped by the influence of solar activity and changes in the lower atmosphere and in near-Earth space.
Fundamental observations and physical insights from the DAPHNE mission will incorporate lower-atmospheric energy data to advance space weather predictive capabilities. The mission is led by Aimee Merkel from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
The mission will be subject to a confirmation review in 2027, which will assess the progress of the mission and the availability of funds. If confirmed, the total estimated cost of the mission, excluding launch, will not exceed $250 million in fiscal year 2023 dollars, with a mission launch date of no earlier than 2029.
The DAPHNE mission was proposed as a concept study in response to the DYNAMIC (Dynamical Neutral Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling) mission announcement of opportunity. Funding and management oversight for this mission is provided by the Solar Terrestrial Probes program at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
For more information on NASA’s heliophysics missions, visit:
Artist’s rendition of the DAPHNE (Dynamic Atmosphere-Ionosphere Explorer) mission concept. The coloring represents auroras and atmospheric waves in Earth’s atmosphere.
Credit: Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics/Mary Tostanoski
NASA selected a mission concept to research how space weather and dynamics within Earth’s atmosphere influence the space environment and help improve prediction capabilities for impacts on crucial technology, such as GPS and low Earth orbit satellites, as well as astronauts in space.
The DAPHNE (Dynamic Atmosphere-Ionosphere Explorer) mission will enter Phase B of development, which includes planning and design for flight and mission operations. It will use identical twin satellites to study how changes in Earth’s lower atmosphere influence our planet’s upper atmosphere, where space weather is manifested.
“NASA is advancing the United States’ leadership as a space weather-ready nation, and by providing new insights into Earth’s atmosphere we can better predict and prepare for impacts in our daily lives on Earth and in space,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters in Washington. “As NASA sends astronauts beyond Earth’s magnetic protection to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, DAPHNE will join the NASA science fleet strategically located across the solar system to provide data that will help mission planners predict and mitigate the effects of space weather for the benefit of all.”
The DAPHNE mission’s low-risk high-return concept will provide coordinated, multi-point measurements of neutral winds, temperature, and composition in the thermosphere. The ionosphere and thermosphere regions are where Earth’s neutral atmosphere transitions into the ionized plasma of space. In this thin shell that surrounds the planet, the atmosphere is in constant motion, shaped by the influence of solar activity and changes in the lower atmosphere and in near-Earth space.
Fundamental observations and physical insights from the DAPHNE mission will incorporate lower-atmospheric energy data to advance space weather predictive capabilities. The mission is led by Aimee Merkel from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
The mission will be subject to a confirmation review in 2027, which will assess the progress of the mission and the availability of funds. If confirmed, the total estimated cost of the mission, excluding launch, will not exceed $250 million in fiscal year 2023 dollars, with a mission launch date of no earlier than 2029.
The DAPHNE mission was proposed as a concept study in response to the DYNAMIC (Dynamical Neutral Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling) mission announcement of opportunity. Funding and management oversight for this mission is provided by the Solar Terrestrial Probes program at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
For more information on NASA’s heliophysics missions, visit:
By 2030, data centers could rise to sixth in the world for energy consumption, which would have a land footprint the size of Connecticut and release emissions comparable to those of the U.K. in 2025, depending on how much renewable energy is in the mix.
The findings highlight how much additional pressure AI and the infrastructure that supports it could put on the environment and the climate within the next few years. But why does AI have such a huge footprint, who is benefiting or being left out from the opportunities linked to AI's growth, and what can be done to limit the damage?
Sascha Pare: What would you say is the main takeaway from the report?
Kaveh Madani: The main takeaway of this report is that although in the general discourse AI is perceived as something virtual, or digital, or up in the clouds, there is [a] massive physicality to AI and the supply chains and infrastructure that back it up. And that's one thing that this report has tried to do: to remind people that behind every prompt, every use, every interaction, there is some level of impact on the environment. This is because from the top of the supply chain, where the extraction of critical minerals happens, to the point of manufacturing the hardware, the construction of the data centers, then the operation of data centers, and then dealing with the e-waste, there are major environmental impacts. If we take all of those into account, then we realize that what's digital is not necessarily free of impact. There is always some footprint associated with it, and we have to remember that.
SP: Why does AI have such massive land and water footprints, specifically?
KM: The report outlines the carbon, water and land footprints of AI's energy use. All along the supply chain, from the extraction of critical minerals to the point of disposing and dealing with the electronic waste, we have actions and interventions that require water, require land, and are associated with carbon emissions. So, if you think about, for example, the extraction of critical minerals, we know that during the process, a lot of water is being used and a lot of water is being polluted and poisoned. We published a report in April about the water injustice implications of the critical minerals, showing exactly what is happening where we have the extraction of critical minerals.
You have to decide if you want to continue using your water for agriculture or if you want to put it into data centers.
Kaveh Madani
But let's not forget that the [new] report is focused on AI's energy use, and then tries to argue that the energy production process itself requires also a lot of water and land. If you are using hydropower to provide energy to your data center, you're using a lot of land and a lot of water. This applies to all sorts of energy sources, regardless of being clean or not, or if you consider them renewable or not — they all require water and land. On top of this, of course, you need to build data centers on land, but also you need water for cooling. That's why, throughout the supply chain, throughout the life cycle of AI, we have a lot of water and land use, in addition to carbon emissions.
SP: The report is packed with jaw-dropping statistics about how big AI's environmental footprint could get by 2030. But how significant are the impacts?
KM: First of all, it is very hard to estimate exactly how much energy AI is currently using, but we know that roughly 20% of the current load of data centers can be attributed to AI. We are expecting that to be 40% within a few years. And by then, the data centers that back AI's operations are expected to have an energy demand that is about 3% of the total energy demand of the world. This is equivalent to being the sixth-most-energy-intensive country in the world. The water demand of that is also huge; the water footprint associated with that is enough to satisfy the domestic water needs of 1.3 billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.
SP: Can the environment and communities cope with the projected levels of energy and water consumption needed for AI?
KM: There would be places in the world where big decisions must be made, meaning that you have to decide if you want to continue using your water for agriculture or if you want to put it into data centers. Those would be decisions for the communities — and if the communities are not involved, then the most vulnerable, the poor, will be dealing with the consequences.
A Microsoft Azure data center in Aldie, Virginia. (Image credit: Lexi Critchett/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
At the same time, we know that the world's electricity consumption keeps increasing. That's a major problem, because although we are trying to add more and more renewables to the energy supply systems, the renewables cannot keep up with the increasing electricity demand. This means that not only can we not retire the old systems, but we might also need to use more fossil energy to satisfy this growing demand. And of course, that means more pressure on the fragile environment.
We know some of the data centers are being placed in locations that are already dry or suffering from what we refer to as "water bankruptcy," based on the report we published in January. These are major issues. More pressure on the environment [puts] more pressure on humans, and this recipe means [we could have] a kind of reinforcing degradation loop that would jeopardize both nature and human society.
SP: Who is benefiting the most from AI's expansion, and who is being excluded?
KM: AI expansion is benefiting humanity as a whole. It has changed our lifestyle; it has provided a lot of opportunities and improvements. But at the same time, it has some consequences. The issue that we see right now is that the richer communities and countries of the world are the ones that are benefiting from it the most, and within those communities and countries, it's the rich who are also profiting more from the expansion. If you look at the investment landscape of AI, you can see that there is a lot of push from a number of strong players and private investors. And they don't bear the costs when it comes to pollution, water bankruptcy, land degradation and so on.
If you think about the emissions, they are contributing to global warming, and everybody would suffer from it. Even the countries that don't have AI infrastructure are affected: If you think about where the critical minerals come from, you see a lot of poor communities, poor countries and poor regions in Africa, South America, parts of Asia, where people don't have basic infrastructure — they don't even have clean drinking water and energy infrastructure. They don't benefit from this expansion and the profits and utilities it provides. It's the most vulnerable communities and the poor economies that are going to suffer the consequences, while the other ones will benefit more.
SP: How did you estimate AI's growth by 2030, and how likely is it that your numbers will come true, given the fears that AI is a bubble that's about to catastrophically burst?
KM: We were looking at the data centers, and we still think that our projections are conservative. There is a lot of push from the private sector to further growth. Countries are also seeing investment in AI and data centers as an investment in security, sovereignty and other matters, so there's also a competition there. Some of the investments — some of the decisions about expanding AI — are not necessarily based on comprehensive assessments. Investments remain a bid to stay in the race, and that means more and more push. So we think that what we have projected is probably very conservative.
SP: China is scaling up its energy capacity together with data center buildout, and it is putting data centers in the ocean to try to solve the hardware cooling issue. What do you make of this strategy, and should other countries learn from it?
Chinese companies are testing underwater data centers to solve cooling demands. Here, we see a data center under construction at a shipyard in Nantong, in China's eastern Jingsu province. (Image credit: CN-STR / AFP via Getty Images)
KM: China's more centralized decision-making system provides advantages, but I think we need to be careful about generalizing the information of one or two projects highlighted by the media to the overall strategy.
We know that China has been expanding its renewable energy production capacity, and that's definitely a good thing. We have to make sure that the additional load of AI would not mean more fossil energy and would not compromise the decarbonization process. But at the same time, we should note that just scaling up renewables is not sufficient if you're thinking about decarbonization. We need a massive addition of renewables if we're going to reverse climate change, and we are not seeing strong enough signs of that around the world. So that's something that we have to be worried about.
That has been the challenge created for the world because of the expansion of AI. When it comes to putting things under the ocean, I think we do not yet have enough information and enough experience to judge if those things come with less environmental impact. What we hide would not be impact-free; there are also other impacts to worry about.
SP: What are some other solutions to the pressures AI is putting on the environment and people? How should we approach the rapid expansion to ensure it is fair?
KM: We offer a framework based on a number of principles about making the AI governance system more fair and transparent and sustainable. So, those are the principles suggested, and they bring responsibility to all stakeholders, including the developers and service providers — those who provide the technology and have responsibilities of ensuring that their systems are more transparent and efficient.
Then, we have the governments that have the responsibility of ensuring that information becomes available, that footprints are properly monitored and disclosed and regulated. They can use a range of incentives, mechanisms or penalties to ensure that footprints are reduced across the supply chain — and I insist on that — from the mines to the landfill. So, that can be done; pollution taxes can be charged and so on. [Governments should ensure] that those who have to deal with the consequences also benefit from the profits and the opportunities that data centers bring to their communities. Decisions must be made based on resource availability and the environmental consequences taken into account.
Users also can do a better job of making smarter choices by using AI more responsibly and only when it's absolutely necessary. When using AI, choose the right models, and be mindful of what is happening behind the scenes. Is it really necessary to generate another image? Is it really necessary to generate a video? Is it necessary to use the model in the "thinking mode"? Together, all the stakeholders can make a difference, and users can also call for more transparency and force governments to take action to force the service providers to provide more information and be more transparent.
Editor's note: This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
The first global map of underground fungal networks reveals a hidden 68 quadrillion-mile superhighway that helps sustain life on Earth and store carbon in the soil. Beneath forests, grasslands, wetlands, and even many agricultural fields lies a vast underground fungal network that supports plant life and plays an important role in the global carbon cycle. [...]
Rainforests are some of the most important and diverse ecosystems on Earth. Found across several continents, these vast forests are home to millions of plants and animal species, many of which can't be found anywhere else. Many rainforests, both tropical and temperate, also play a crucial role in regulating the planet's climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen.
Rainforests vary immensely in size. Some stretch across multiple countries and cover millions of square miles, while others are much smaller but still support incredible biodiversity. Understanding the relative size of these rainforests helps us appreciate their role on our planet and the challenges involved in preserving them.
In this quiz, you'll test your knowledge by sorting the top 10 biggest rainforests from largest to smallest. Click on and drag the blue rectangles to place them in the right order. Remember to log in to put your name on the leaderboard; hints are available if you click the yellow button.
A new study reveals that oak trees can keep photosynthesizing for months after growth ends, challenging assumptions about how effectively forests convert absorbed carbon into long-term storage. A tree can look busy long after it has stopped building itself. Its leaves may still be absorbing sunlight and pulling carbon dioxide from the air, but deep [...]
A giant blob of abnormally cold water in the North Atlantic Ocean is shifting the Indian summer monsoon, threatening the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people, new research suggests.
The link between these two systems highlights a previously unrecognized connection that could inform weather forecasts in South Asia and shed light on climatic events elsewhere, scientists say.
The Indian summer monsoon is a rainfall pattern that lasts from June to September and is driven by temperature differences between the warm northern Indian Ocean and cooler seawater below the equator. Historically, the monsoon triggered heavy rainfall along the west coast of India and a huge region of northern India called the Indo-Gangetic Plain. But since 1999, this pattern has changed dramatically, the researchers reported in a new study.
Northwest India now receives about 25% more rain during the monsoon season than it did before 1999, while the Indo-Gangetic Plain gets roughly 4% less, the team found. This is disastrous for farmers, in particular, because their soils and crops are adapted to the old rainfall pattern, said study first author Mahendra Nimmakanti, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Science's Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.
"India is largely dependent on agriculture," Nimmakanti told Live Science in a joint interview with study co-author Matthew Huber, a professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Purdue University in Indiana. Higher-than-normal precipitation in northwest India is causing flash floods and crop losses, because agriculture in this region is adapted to dry conditions. Meanwhile, the Indo-Gangetic Plain has seen periods of drought that also caused crop declines and impacted farmers' livelihoods, Nimmakanti said.
Previous studies have linked shifts in the Indian summer monsoon to changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a giant web of ocean currents in the Atlantic that regulates the global climate and carries heat to the Northern Hemisphere. Data suggests the AMOC is slowing due to climate change and releasing less heat in the North Atlantic Ocean than it did before. This may be causing a southward shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, a band of low-pressure atmospheric conditions around the equator that drives tropical monsoons, including the Indian summer monsoon.
But these studies didn't specify how the Indian monsoon might shift or explain the underlying mechanism in detail, Nimmakanti said. "They generally explain that if there is a weakening of AMOC, that suppresses the Indian summer monsoon," he said.
One part of the problem is that current climate models do not show the changes in the Indian monsoon that have happened in real life, possibly because they also don't fully capture shifts in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. This is especially true for a region southeast of Greenland known as the "cold blob," where the water was colder between 1901 and 2021 than it was in the late 1800s, even as the ocean around it heated up.
To pinpoint how and why the Indian monsoon has changed, the researchers fed precipitation data, sea surface temperature records and other real-life observations into dozens of climate models. This reproduced the shifts observed over the past 27 years. However, the results only implied a correlation between shifts in the North Atlantic and changes in the monsoon, not that the former directly caused the latter.
Northwest India now gets 25% more rain during the monsoon season than it did before 1999, and this shift has also increased flooding risk in Pakistan. (Image credit: Sabir Mazhar/Anadolu via Getty Images)
To figure out if North Atlantic sea surface temperatures caused the Indian monsoon to behave strangely, the team added and removed the cold blob in a simulation. The results showed that the cold blob has shifted the Indian monsoon by creating a strong temperature gradient over the North Atlantic, which, in turn, affects jet stream winds and pressure systems in the atmosphere above Eurasia.
Specifically, the jet stream above the North Atlantic has intensified, and a "blocking" system over the Ural Mountains in western Russia has strengthened, Huber said. As a result, weather systems in India have changed, sucking moist air toward the country's northwest and away from other regions.
"It's a shifting of the high- and low-pressure systems," Huber said. "Realizing that these two systems were directly linked through this wave train coming off the North Atlantic, that was novel."
More than 1 billion people in India and other parts of South Asia depend on the monsoon for food security and economic stability. The new results, published April 27 in the journal AGU Advances, could help forecasters predict extreme rainfall and drought events in India and neighboring countries like Pakistan during the monsoon season.
Some researchers think the Indian monsoon is a key tipping point within the global climate, and the findings suggest the system crossed a threshold in 1999. Since then, the cold blob has caused a "persistent jet stream reorganization," leading to abrupt shifts in the monsoon, according to the study.
It's unclear how the Indian monsoon will evolve under intensifying climate change, because climate models produce different predictions of what will happen in the North Atlantic, and other drivers may come into play as the world changes, Huber said.
"What we do now know is that this is one of the key building blocks of formulating a theory for what will happen in the future," he said.
Taming Nature: Inside China's efforts to control the region's water
China is facing water scarcity that affects millions of people, so the country is embarking on water projects on a scale the planet has never seen. This three-part series investigates three elements of this effort: the world's biggest dam, a doomed effort to create a "river in the sky," and a colossal water transfer project.
In southwest China, Chinese soldiers load and fire rockets toward the sky as aircraft and drones circle overhead, dropping their toxic cargo into the air. The weapons are not trained on an enemy, and the planes aren't dropping bombs. Instead, they are targeting the clouds hovering in the sky.
This footage is just a tiny snapshot of the massive, countrywide effort to seed the clouds with rain at an unprecedented scale.
More than 50 countries around the world use cloud seeding to modify the weather at small scales, including the United States.
China has been using and expanding cloud seeding for decades. This images from 2011 shows cloud-seeding shells being fired into the sky in Hubei Province, central China. (Image credit: Getty Images)
But China is the world leader, employing around 50,000 people; using thousands of rocket launchers and dozens of planes; and investing the equivalent of billions of dollars in these initiatives, experts told Live Science.
In 2018, China embarked on its most ambitious cloud seeding plan. The Tianhe ("Sky River") project aimed to create a permanent airborne water "corridor" from one river basin to another on the Tibetan Plateau. The project was intended to be part of the country's much bigger South-North Water Transfer project — a massive effort to transfer water to China's highly populated and water-scarce North and East.
From the start, the Sky River faced scathing criticism from scientists who said the project was unworkable. Yet China forged ahead.
China's pursuit of such a scientifically questionable geoengineering technology shows just how far Chinese authorities are prepared to go to achieve the country's water and climate goals. It also reveals how the Chinese government views the natural world, experts have said.
"There is an impetus to control and to view the environment as a machine or an infrastructure that can be controlled," Emily Yeh, a professor of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, told Live Science.
The science of cloud seeding
China uses cloud seeding to produce precipitation to build up snowpack, help alleviate droughts, reduce the impact of hailstorms, and create skies clear of clouds and pollution for official events — as it did most famously during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, experts told Live science.
But cloud seeding can't create rain from an empty sky. Instead, it causes existing clouds to generate precipitation more efficiently by injecting particles into a cloud. Water droplets then coalesce around these particles, and the water eventually falls as rain or snow.
"Every single drop in any cloud you have ever seen — there's a particle in it," Rob Rauber, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told Live Science. Cloud seeding speeds up the raindrop-forming process by introducing more particles, he explained.
This illustration shows, in simple terms, how cloud seeding works. (Image credit: LAURENCE CHU via Getty Images)
There are two main ways to do this, depending on whether the temperature of the clouds is above or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius). Warm-cloud seeding is known as hygroscopic seeding, while cold-cloud seeding is called glaciogenic seeding.
"They have the same general goals or approach," Jeff French, head of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, told Live Science. "And that is to introduce something into the cloud that would increase the efficiency in which cloud droplets or ice crystals are able to grow to precipitation-size particles and fall out of cloud either as rain or as snow."
A salt such as sodium chloride is typically used for hygroscopic seeding to attract water droplets, French said. Glaciogenic seeding, by contrast, takes advantage of cold clouds' supercooled water — water that is liquid even when temperatures are below freezing — by introducing silver iodide. This substance has a similar structure to ice and collides with supercooled water in a cloud, causing it to freeze and eventually fall from the cloud, French said.
Scientists insert seeding particles into clouds in a number of ways, including by dropping them from planes and drones, firing shells or rockets into the clouds from the ground, or burning materials in chambers that release the combustion byproducts into the air.
Scientists are still learning exactly when and how to use these techniques most effectively. Rauber and French both noted that it's difficult to quantify cloud seeding's impact.
"It becomes kind of a quagmire when you ask that question: 'Does cloud seeding work?'," French said. For his research, he used airplanes, ground sensors and radar across the U.S. Mountain West to measure the effects of seeding from aircraft on the initiation and growth of crystals and eventual snowfall. "From a physical standpoint, I can say very confidently that cloud seeding works," French said.
However, that experiment was in cold, mountainous conditions, and the impact of cloud seeding depends on many conditions, so tracking whether cloud seeding increases precipitation over a longer period and in different conditions can be challenging.
Science Spotlight
(Image credit: Marilyn Perkins / Future)
Science Spotlight takes a deeper look at emerging science and gives you, our readers, the perspective you need on these advances. Our stories highlight trends in different fields, how new research is changing old ideas, and how the picture of the world we live in is being transformed thanks to science.
"Not all clouds are created equal," French said. Some are colder or warmer, and the seeding material won't work as well; in others, the size or distribution of droplets makes precipitation less likely. Even within a small region, the snowfall varies tremendously from one point to another. And beyond a small region, all bets are off.
"If you have a very successful cloud seeding program, that is producing, maybe 7% or 9% or even 10% more precipitation over a mountain range, downstream of that mountain range, the impact may be 1%," French said. "But it is a really difficult number to get our arms around."
French added that scientists should be careful to not overpromise what cloud seeding can accomplish.
"If the promise is that cloud seeding is going to eliminate droughts even on a local level, the answer is no, it can't live up to that. There's no scientific evidence," French said. But if targeted properly, it can moderately increase natural precipitation, he said.
Cloud seeding on the Tibetan Plateau
Despite cloud seeding's limitations, China has established weather modification bureaus across the country.
"They have a whole campus of people who are working in the weather modification field," Rauber said. "They have a fleet of aircraft — they're on a whole different scale than anything that goes on anywhere else in the world."
Chinese researchers claim that the country has made huge strides in its weather modification. Reports from state-owned media suggested that weather modification efforts increased precipitation by 168 billion tons between 2020 and 2025, and that in experiments, just one cup of cloud seeding material generated 30 Olympic-size pools' worth of precipitation over an area the size of Yellowstone National Park in the arid Xinjiang region.
A map showing water scarcity in various regions of China. (Image credit: Kong et al. (2021), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
These weather modifications have also been conducted on the Tibetan Plateau. The vitally important region, nicknamed Asia's Water Tower, is the source of multiple major rivers that supply water to nearly 2 billion people across Asia. But the plateau is facing increasing desertification and glacier loss due to human-caused climate change and other human activities such as overgrazing animals.
China's cloud-seeding ambitions for the plateau reached a whole new level in 2018, when authorities announced the Sky River project. The controversial project aimed to use cloud seeding to create precipitation across a 620,000-square-mile (1.6 million square kilometers) area in the Tibetan Plateau — about the size of Alaska — to divert Indian monsoon rains above the Yangtze River basin and channel the water to the Yellow River basin. From the Tibetan Plateau, the Yellow River flows north and east into the parched northern regions of China, while the Yangtze flows south and east into less-water-scarce areas. The initial plan claimed the project would transfer up to 7% of the country's total annual water consumption, reports noted.
The atmospheric channel was intended to be part of the country's colossal South-North Water Transfer Project, circumventing the region's challenging terrain by moving the water in the sky instead.
The plan, due to be completed in 2025, called for seeding this atmospheric river using tens of thousands of silver iodide-burning chambers on the ground, linked to a series of meteorological satellites that would analyze the weather conditions. Information from these satellites would automatically trigger the burners when the conditions were suitable for cloud seeding.
Cloud seeding takes place in more than 50 countries, including in the U.S. Here, a plane in California is about to take off with pyrotechnic silver iodide flares. (Image credit: inga spence via Alamy)
However, the plan was immediately met with a barrage of criticism from scientists in China. In a translated statement, Hancheng Lu, a professor at the National University of Defense Technology's School of Meteorology and Oceanography, called the project "an absurd and fantastical project with neither scientific basis nor technological feasibility."
The project was unworkable because it is not possible to convert all atmospheric moisture to rain, or to channel moisture in this way, Yeh said.
As of 2022, researchers were working on a significantly scaled-back version of the project. However, China's official channels have gone dark on the topic.
China's newly announced five-year plan, which sets out the policy direction of the country from 2026 to 2030, references weather modification enhancements but doesn't mention this specific project, according to reports from Chinese media.
This has led experts to speculate that the project was quietly canceled.
"When one goes to China and asks atmospheric scientists not involved in it about it, they just sort of laugh, and it's like this embarrassing incident," Yeh said. "It was never possible."
To see whether the project was still going forward, Live Science reached out to several researchers involved in the project, but they did not reply by the time of publication.
The fears of cloud seeding
The pursuit of the Sky River project — despite the low likelihood that it would ever work —— has caused significant alarm in neighboring countries. India relies on the monsoon rains and rivers such as the Brahmaputra, which starts in the Tibetan Plateau before flowing through India and Bangladesh on a 1,800-mile-long (2,900 km) route to the sea. There are also suspicions about cloud seeding being used to cause flooding across borders.
Many of these fears are overblown, experts told Live Science. Rauber noted that cloud seeding can't influence weather enough to reduce water in a wider weather system.
"This is always a question of, 'Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul?'" Rauber said. But the amount of water in storm clouds "is way greater than anything cloud seeding is going to extract."
Climate geoengineering
China's all-in pursuit of technologies like cloud seeding — even on the internationally important and politically sensitive Tibetan Plateau — has raised concerns that China is prepared to go to extreme lengths to engineer its way out of its problems — even when it involves scientifically dubious geoengineering projects with massive risks.
This may even involve attempts to change how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface, experts have speculated.
"Given similarities, weather modification could serve as a means to incrementally build legitimacy for solar radiation management, in China and beyond, which may ultimately make it possible to deploy it," researchers argued in a 2019 study.
However, there's no evidence that China is currently pursuing such climate modifications, and it's unlikely they'd do so without some cooperation or buy-in from other countries, researchers wrote in 2023.
"It is currently unlikely that China would deploy SRM unilaterally. But its weather modification programme does demonstrate the country's willingness and capability to undertake large-scale atmospheric intervention projects," the study authors wrote.
Solar radiation modification aims to release particles such as sulfur high into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space in an effort to limit global heating. It is being increasingly investigated by researchers and governments. The controversial concept has never been demonstrated on a large scale, and studies suggest it has many potential risks, such as the potential to shut down monsoon rains.
Scientists have already seen some of the negative impacts of natural solar radiation modification, for instance in the aftermath of large volcanic eruptions, such as Tambora in 1815. "It led to the suppression of the monsoon, because the monsoon is driven by heating from the sun, Rauber said. "And that cuts back on rain in tropical areas, and that causes droughts, which causes all sorts of diseases and can lead to mass starvation," he added.
"The evidence from nature is don't mess with Mother Nature," he said.
Lucid has registered the design of its upcoming Cosmos with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, giving us the clearest look yet at the sub-$50,000 crossover the automaker is betting its future on.
The filing, published last week, shows the production design of Lucid’s first mass-market EV from every angle, inside and out, months before its expected reveal this summer.
The reservoir appears lake-like and expansive in an image acquired in June 2023.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
The reservoir is nearly empty by May 2026. The Gila River’s natural channel is now visible and flanked with green vegetation in what had been the bottom of the reservoir.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
The reservoir appears lake-like and expansive in an image acquired in June 2023.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
The reservoir is nearly empty by May 2026. The Gila River’s natural channel is now visible and flanked with green vegetation in what had been the bottom of the reservoir.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
June 7, 2023
May 22, 2026
Little water remains in the San Carlos Reservoir in May 2026 (right) compared to fuller conditions in June 2023 (left). Images were captured by the OLI (Operational Land Imager) on the Landsat 9 and 8 satellites, respectively. NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison.
The Gila River is among the Southwest’s most important rivers, delivering water for people, farms, and wildlife while linking the snow-fed mountains of southwestern New Mexico to the desert lowlands of southwestern Arizona.
In wetter years, seasonal snowfall on the Mogollon Mountains and Black Range provides much of the river’s spring flow and helps refill San Carlos Reservoir, which is formed by the Coolidge Dam. When filled to capacity, the reservoir is one of Arizona’s largest bodies of water.
However, in 2026, lackluster snowfall left the mountain snowpack in the Gila River watershed at 2 percent of the 1991-2020 March median. The limited snowpack pushed April streamflow to 39 percent of normal. By June, after mandatory water releases for downstream agriculture, the reservoir held less than 400 acre-feet of water.
The Landsat image above (right) shows the near-empty reservoir on May 22, 2026, when it stored 389 acre-feet of water—less than 1 percent full; the other image (left) shows the same area in June 2023, when it was about 60 percent full. The green vegetation growing along the river channel and reservoir edge includes a mixture of tamarisk, willow, cottonwood, sedges, and grasses.
Officials closed the reservoir indefinitely on June 5, 2026, after the declining water levels contributed to low oxygen levels—hypoxia—that killed virtually all of its fish. Species living in the reservoir included largemouth bass, black crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and several stocked species, including brown trout and rainbow trout. The decomposing fish may pose health risks to people attempting to boat or fish, the San Carlos Recreation and Wildlife Department warned.
The reservoir has hit similarly low water levels in the past, running out of water at least 20 times since it was filled in 1930, according to news reports. Even when the dam and reservoir were first dedicated, there was enough grass growing on the dried reservoir bottom that humorist Will Rogers famously quipped to President Calvin Coolidge: “If that was my lake, I’d mow it.”
Other years with major fish kills include 1976 and 2018. After more than 5 million fish died during a similar event in 1976, the Gila Heraldreported that it took five years for the lake’s ecosystem to rebound.
The region is currently in the midst of a multi-year dry period that has left much of the Gila River’s headwaters in New Mexico in a state of severe drought, according to data from the U.S. Drought Monitor.
However, the river’s flow is highly variable, and heavy rains during the coming wet season could help the reservoir recover. A seasonal monsoon outlook released by NOAA in May 2026 projected a 33 to 50 percent chance that an above-average amount of rain would fall in the region that summer. El Niño in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, which was strengthening in late spring 2026, can make heavy rains in the U.S. Southwest more likely.
NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey.Story by Adam Voiland.
The reservoir appears lake-like and expansive in an image acquired in June 2023.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
The reservoir is nearly empty by May 2026. The Gila River’s natural channel is now visible and flanked with green vegetation in what had been the bottom of the reservoir.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
The reservoir appears lake-like and expansive in an image acquired in June 2023.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
The reservoir is nearly empty by May 2026. The Gila River’s natural channel is now visible and flanked with green vegetation in what had been the bottom of the reservoir.
NASA Earth Observatory/Michala Garrison
June 7, 2023
May 22, 2026
Little water remains in the San Carlos Reservoir in May 2026 (right) compared to fuller conditions in June 2023 (left). Images were captured by the OLI (Operational Land Imager) on the Landsat 9 and 8 satellites, respectively. NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison.
The Gila River is among the Southwest’s most important rivers, delivering water for people, farms, and wildlife while linking the snow-fed mountains of southwestern New Mexico to the desert lowlands of southwestern Arizona.
In wetter years, seasonal snowfall on the Mogollon Mountains and Black Range provides much of the river’s spring flow and helps refill San Carlos Reservoir, which is formed by the Coolidge Dam. When filled to capacity, the reservoir is one of Arizona’s largest bodies of water.
However, in 2026, lackluster snowfall left the mountain snowpack in the Gila River watershed at 2 percent of the 1991-2020 March median. The limited snowpack pushed April streamflow to 39 percent of normal. By June, after mandatory water releases for downstream agriculture, the reservoir held less than 400 acre-feet of water.
The Landsat image above (right) shows the near-empty reservoir on May 22, 2026, when it stored 389 acre-feet of water—less than 1 percent full; the other image (left) shows the same area in June 2023, when it was about 60 percent full. The green vegetation growing along the river channel and reservoir edge includes a mixture of tamarisk, willow, cottonwood, sedges, and grasses.
Officials closed the reservoir indefinitely on June 5, 2026, after the declining water levels contributed to low oxygen levels—hypoxia—that killed virtually all of its fish. Species living in the reservoir included largemouth bass, black crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and several stocked species, including brown trout and rainbow trout. The decomposing fish may pose health risks to people attempting to boat or fish, the San Carlos Recreation and Wildlife Department warned.
The reservoir has hit similarly low water levels in the past, running out of water at least 20 times since it was filled in 1930, according to news reports. Even when the dam and reservoir were first dedicated, there was enough grass growing on the dried reservoir bottom that humorist Will Rogers famously quipped to President Calvin Coolidge: “If that was my lake, I’d mow it.”
Other years with major fish kills include 1976 and 2018. After more than 5 million fish died during a similar event in 1976, the Gila Heraldreported that it took five years for the lake’s ecosystem to rebound.
The region is currently in the midst of a multi-year dry period that has left much of the Gila River’s headwaters in New Mexico in a state of severe drought, according to data from the U.S. Drought Monitor.
However, the river’s flow is highly variable, and heavy rains during the coming wet season could help the reservoir recover. A seasonal monsoon outlook released by NOAA in May 2026 projected a 33 to 50 percent chance that an above-average amount of rain would fall in the region that summer. El Niño in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, which was strengthening in late spring 2026, can make heavy rains in the U.S. Southwest more likely.
NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey.Story by Adam Voiland.
Researchers explored how different dietary changes could reduce the carbon footprint of food consumption. A single change at the dinner table could have a bigger climate impact than many people realize. Researchers in the UK found that replacing just one beef steak per week with salmon could significantly reduce food-related carbon emissions over time. In [...]
Researchers found that a magma’s thermal history may be a key factor in determining whether an eruption becomes more vigorous or remains relatively gentle. What happens deep beneath a volcano can determine whether an eruption unfolds as a slow-moving lava flow or explodes into towering fountains of molten rock. New research suggests that one overlooked [...]
Login
