A pyrocumulonimbus cloud, a looming thunderstorm generated by an intensely hot wildfire, has been observed with radar in France for the first time. These deadly “fire clouds” of rising hot air, smoke and moisture, which accelerate blazes with strong winds and soaring embers, are expected to become more common in Europe as wildfires there get bigger.  

“You have this tilted column that is sucking air and then propagating embers in front, and it also creates lightning. That’s another way of lighting up fuels in front of the fire, so these cells are unstoppable,” says at the University of Corsica, France. “You cannot stop a thunderstorm, and neither can you stop a firestorm, a strong pyrocumulonimbus.”

Alongside huge blazes in Spain, France has been suffering a wildfire in the Gironde region, which President Emmanuel Macron has called the country’s most severe crisis since the second world war. The fire has burned more than 420 square kilometres since last week, coming within 15 kilometres of the city of Bordeaux and forcing around 220,000 people to evacuate. It generated a pyrocumulonimbus cloud on 24 July and another on 25 July, according to regional officials. Embers and lightning ignited new fires around the original inferno.

“We faced another firestorm, the same incredible, unprecedented, unknown phenomenon as the one we saw on Friday, when we realised we were entering a new dimension,” Gironde prefect Sophie Brocas told journalists.

It is a miracle this pyrocumulonimbus-fuelled fire hasn’t claimed any casualties, Filippi says.

Sometimes the “fire-breathing dragon of clouds”, pyrocumulonimbus are typically generated by massive wildfires in the forests of North America, Siberia and Australia. They’ve spurred on infamous fires like the that killed 173 people in Australia in 2009 and the conflagration that in 2016. Canada’s record-breaking wildfires in 2023 142 of these storms.

In Europe, however, there have been only a handful of confirmed pyrocumulonimbus in Spain and Portugal, including one during Portugal’s devastating Pedrógão Grande fire in 2017, which destroyed hundreds of homes and killed 66 people. But that appears to be changing.

“You have to have two things happening at the same time: an extreme heat source and an unstable atmosphere that interacts with the fire,” says at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. “If… the heat from the fire increases, like it’s projected to increase from our studies, then yes, you should see more of these events.”

This firestorm begins to take shape when temperatures as high as 800°C send a plume of smoke into the sky. As the hot air rises and cools, water vapour condenses onto the ash to form pyrocumulus clouds, like the fluffy white clouds you might see on a summer day, only brown or grey.  

If the plume is hot enough and the atmosphere is unstable enough, the cloud can keep rising to reach the upper troposphere at 10,000 metres, the cruising altitude of a passenger plane. It sometimes reaches the stratosphere, as much smoke as a moderate volcano. It becomes a pyrocumulonimbus when the static electricity from colliding ice particles sparks thunder and lightning.

Although rain from the cloud often evaporates in the hot air, this kind of thunderstorm nonetheless creates its own weather system. The cloud’s updraft pulls in air, fanning the flames with winds reaching 160 kilometres per hour and accelerating the fire’s spread by up to five times, according to Filippi.

Meanwhile, strong downdrafts create erratic gusts that carry embers off to start new fires. Dozens of lightning strikes can blazes as far as 100 kilometres ahead of the main fire. It can also create fire tornadoes of twisting flames. As the winds, embers and lightning strengthen and expand the wildfire, it releases more heat and smoke, a feedback loop that can amplify the rising cloud for many hours.

Both wind shear higher in the atmosphere and erratic gusts at the ground can take the fire in unpredictable directions, making it nearly impossible to contain its acceleration or plan targeted evacuations.

“The fire front is constantly shifting. We cannot fight it directly. It’s a David-versus-Goliath scenario,” Eric Brocardi of the National Firefighters Federation of France local media about the Gironde fire on 2 August.  

Wildfire plumes have expanded in height since 2003 in the western US, creating more pyrocumulonimbus clouds, an increase that’s projected to continue.

Pyrocumulonimbus will have more chances to occur in Europe as well, as the fastest-warming continent experiences more extreme heat, such as the record-breaking heatwave in June, and wildfires. could also contribute, such as when a wet spring last year boosted vegetation growth on the Iberian peninsula, only for record summer heat to dry it out. This led to Europe’s worst-ever wildfires, including a in Spain.

“We need to adapt, so get prepared,” Filippi says. “Burn-proof and reduce the amount of fuel around your house.”

��’m terrified by how fast weather extremes are ramping up as the world heats up, and there’s much, much worse to come unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground. The only way to do that is to end our dependency on oil and gas – and all the fuss about whether the UK will allow more drilling in the North Sea is a distraction from this.

Some people talk about the UK government’s current policy of not approving more licences for exploration in the North Sea as if it will reduce the amount of oil and gas that is burned, and thus help limit how much more carbon dioxide ends up in the atmosphere. But it won’t. All it will do is change where the oil and gas that gets burned comes from.

What does matter is burning less fossil fuel. That means things such as getting more electricity from renewable sources, and more vehicles and heat pumps running on that electricity.

So I won’t be judging the climate credentials of the UK’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, on whether or not his government decides to in the North Sea. It’s what is done to further reduce our use of fossil fuels that’s crucial in climate terms. And here Burnham has already made a good start by cutting the value-added tax (VAT) on electricity, which will make .

��’m not saying bans on drilling are a complete waste of time – they have a part to play in protecting vulnerable environments, such as the Amazon rainforest. But I don’t see how they will ever help limit emissions.

Free newsletter

Sign up to The Earth Edition

Sign up to newsletter

At this point, you might be thinking, “but if enough countries ban drilling, it will make a difference”. There are already nearly 60 restrictions on fossil fuel production in 25 countries, . But many of these are regional restrictions to protect places such as the Arctic, or bans on production methods such as fracking. And 15 have already been repealed. No major producers are planning to completely stop producing oil and gas, and the known reserves of fossil fuels are way more than enough to trash the climate. The bottom line is that some countries will keep on churning out fossil fuels as long as they can sell them, so the key is to reduce demand, not supply.

That said, most of the arguments used by supporters of further North Sea gas and oil exploration . For starters, more drilling is not going to bring down energy prices in the UK. North Sea oil and gas is sold at global market prices, and there’s not enough oil or gas left in the North Sea to make a dent in those prices.

Going all out on renewables, by contrast, would break , and help bring down energy bills. This is what is Spain .

Another dubious claim is that more drilling is going to make oodles of money for the UK. But production in the North Sea already has to be supported by tax breaks and subsidies, and is declining year on year. of the oil and gas has already been extracted, so further drilling will, at most, slow the rate of decline. And what remains is harder to get out, so costs are higher. If the wars pushing up oil prices come to an end, it might not even be profitable – until recently, the world was building up .

Then there’s the exaggerated claim that North Sea gas is “four times cleaner” than imported liquid natural gas, or LNG. The emissions associated with producing LNG are around four times higher than those for North Sea gas, because of the energy required to liquefy it. But what matters are the total emissions, including those from burning the gas, and on this count .

LNG now accounts for . If that could be reduced by more North Sea gas production, there should be a little less CO2 emitted. It would also mean less money going to countries that obstruct climate action – the UK now gets 37 per cent of its gas from the US, for instance.

But the UK also gets gas from Norway via pipelines, and the production emissions of this are even lower than those of North Sea gas. So in climate terms, buying more Norwegian pipeline gas would be better than increasing North Sea production.

Overall, then, what happens in the North Sea just doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things – more drilling is neither a climate catastrophe, nor an economic panacea. Instead, the UK and other countries need to focus on what really matters – much more drastic action to replace fossil fuels or discourage their use. You only need to look at to see why it’s so vital.

Global warming-fuelled heat and drought is already hitting yields of maize, wheat and soybeans to the tune of $20 billion a year, a study has estimated. This could rise eightfold, to more than $160 billion by 2100, unless we slash emissions.

While the financial losses will be greatest for big producers such as the US, the impacts will be felt most in the lowest-income countries, where ,��������� at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. “If you look at the least-developed countries in Africa, the impact is much bigger.” This could lead to social unrest and increased migration, she warns.

There is great uncertainty about these kinds of projections, not least because so much depends on how farmers respond and adapt to a continually changing climate, for instance, by switching to different crops or adopting irrigation where it is possible. In fact, the whole point of this study is to raise awareness and encourage adaptation, to help ensure these projections turn out to be overestimates, says team member , also at IIASA. “This is the entire mission of climate scientists: we make these cases for people to react, so our projections turn out to be wrong.”

The researchers started by gathering data on the yields per country of maize, wheat and soya from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Next, they took past climate data and calculated the drought level, using a standard approach that estimates soil moisture levels from rainfall and evaporation levels.

Past heat extremes and drought levels were then compared with the yields from 1974 to 2004 to estimate the impact of heat and drought. They then used these statistical correlations to estimate crop losses from 2007 to 2019. Their results suggest that increases in heat extremes and drought have caused a 3.5 per cent decline in yields relative to the 1974 to 2004 baseline. “Three per cent or so might not sound like much, but this is a major impact [on] the global food market, which regionally can trigger a severe crisis,” says Kornhuber.

The researchers then calculated the economic losses, based on FAO data showing how much farmers would have been paid for their produce at the time. Finally, they used the same approach to project future losses in several different emissions scenarios, assuming that some adaptation takes place.

Free newsletter

Sign up to The Earth Edition

Sign up to newsletter

In a high-emissions scenario, known as SSP3-7.0, global yields will fall by around 35 per cent by 2100, with annual losses rising to more than $161 billion. “The production losses caused by heat and drought are around 855 million tonnes a year,” says Hwong, who presented the results at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna in May. “I think that is equivalent to what around 2 billion people consume over a year.”

This could be an underestimate of the full impact of climate change for a number of reasons: it’s just three crops, and it doesn’t include flood, storm or rain damage, or the possibility that shortages could lead to big price increases, as is already happening with some other crops such as coffee and cacao.

A key solution to climate change isn’t happening – and that’s good

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by capturing the carbon from burning biomass is supposed to save the planet, but it looks like the flagship project will never happen

at Columbia University in New York says the study’s reliance on the statistical relationships between yield losses and extreme heat and drought could result in it overestimating the impacts by 2100. “Statistical yield models are great for explaining what’s happening now, and in the near past [or] future, but they are inherently unreliable when pushed into vastly different environmental regimes, such as high-emission climate scenarios by the end of the century.” Computer models of how plants are affected by rising CO2 and temperatures are better for projecting what will happen by the end of the century, he says.

at the University of Queensland, Australia, makes the same point. “Although models are not perfect, they are better suited for this type of extrapolation.” However, her team recently released a , which hasn’t been peer-reviewed, showing that two widely used models for wheat make large errors and are especially poor at forecasting the combined effects of extreme heat and drought.

But Kornhuber has defended his team’s use of statistical methods. “The models are remarkable tools, but some of the validation papers have suggested that they might not be super responsive to extremes,” he says. “In our project, extremes were the main focus, so we decided to establish these relationships directly through statistics.”

Short-term geoengineering to brighten clouds over the eastern Pacific Ocean could limit the damage caused by El Niño and save the global economy trillions of dollars, although there could be winners and losers from the disruption of natural cycles.

The El Niño climate phase occurs when easterly winds weaken, allowing warm water built up in the western Pacific to slosh back across the central and eastern parts of the ocean. That heats the atmosphere and raises global temperatures, with losses to economic growth estimated in the trillions of dollars.

What could become a very strong or “super” El Niño is now developing in the eastern Pacific. But climate modelling has suggested that, in the future, a geoengineering method called marine cloud brightening might be able to cut this warming short.

The technique involves spraying tiny droplets of seawater into the air below low-lying stratocumulus clouds, where moisture condenses onto them. The clouds become whiter thanks to the increase in the number of droplets, reflecting more sunlight back to space.

Shading part of the eastern Pacific called the Niño 3.4 region via cloud brightening could interrupt the feedback loops that cause an El Niño to develop. Cooler sea surface temperatures would strengthen the trade winds to again blow warm water back into the western Pacific. More cool water would then well up from the depths of the eastern Pacific, further cooling surface temperatures, and so on.

“You can basically stop the dominoes from falling early when you do marine cloud brightening,” says at the University of California, San Diego, who worked on the study. “We’re kicking the cycle in the other direction.”

Free newsletter

Sign up to The Earth Edition

Sign up to newsletter

Wan and her colleagues got the idea from the “black summer” of catastrophic bush fires in Australia in 2019-2020, which were followed by La Niña, the opposite phase of El Niño that lowers global temperatures. Research has that drifting smoke particles brightened clouds and cooled the eastern Pacific, intensifying and prolonging the “triple dip” La Niña that began in 2020 and persisted through three winters, rather than just one or two.

The study modelled what cloud brightening could have done to the super El Niño events of 1997-1998 and 2015-2016. It found that nine months of spraying seawater would have nearly halved warming of the Niño 3.4 region, from 2°C or more to a little over 1°C. It would have ended the El Niño by January, shaving several months off the events.

The hypothetical cloud-brightening mission would have been massive, involving an estimated 2400 ships and delivering an amount of seawater spray that isn’t possible with current nozzle technology. But it would have turned a super El Niño into a moderate one.

Wan says she was surprised how well it seemed to work, given that it could only be started in June, once El Niño had clearly begun developing.

at the University of Exeter, UK, warns that these results might not translate to the real world, where warming seas typically start dissipating low-level clouds, leading to further warming and dissipation through a feedback loop.

“In a model with a stronger cloud feedback, you would have to do more aerosol injection,” he says. “The experiments seem to be at the limit of what can be done.”

Wan admits this approach could have unexpected consequences, since the model only projected the impact over two-year periods. In both simulations, La Niña started earlier after El Niño subsided, and in the 2015-2016 case, this subsequent cooler phase became stronger. That could be bad news for regions like the Horn of Africa, where strong La Niñas have, in the past, disrupted rainfall and .

But she says the idea is worth further research. Unlike geoengineering aimed at reducing global temperatures for the long term, short-term geoengineering like this could avoid the risk of “termination shock”, where any disruption to the spraying of low-level seawater or stratospheric aerosols could allow years of pent-up warming to come roaring back.

“This study is opening up doors for a completely new target for geoengineering research, which is climate variability and things like El Niño,” says Wan. “It’s potentially very powerful, because you’re not locked into these long-term risks.”

A heatwave in May set monthly temperature records across Europe; a heatwave in June became the hottest ever observed in western Europe. Now, in July, yet another heatwave is developing. Just 50 years ago, the June heatwave would have been virtually impossible. But global warming is making heatwaves more frequent, longer and more intense.

Worldwide, heat is the deadliest type of weather, killing more than each year. The number will increase, since even if we reached net zero tomorrow, the carbon dioxide we have already emitted will keep raising temperatures.

“This is just the start,” says at University College London. “Things are unfolding in a very, very major way now, because this isn’t just about it [being] too hot in London, and the long-term effects are going to be savage.”

Outside the tropics, the time of the year in which temperatures above 32°C occur has lengthened by 12 days in the past half-century. In Europe, the fastest-warming continent, the season of strong heat stress now starts on average in June and continues until almost September. Sometimes, like this year, it starts in May.

That increases people’s exposure to hot days and heatwaves. Parts of North America, Europe, South America and Africa now experience up to 50 more days of strong heat stress compared with the 1970s.

“If you’ve got heatwaves that last longer, and then you’ve got more heatwaves, people are going to be in that raised physiological state for longer,” says Neil Maxwell at the University of Brighton, UK. “That can lead to greater inflammatory marker responses, and that ultimately puts a greater stress upon individuals.”

Strong heat stress almost never occurred at night before 1998. But now, nighttime temperatures in western Europe and other places are increasing at of global warming as a whole.

A drop in body temperature triggers sleep. If the environment is too hot, it is harder to fall asleep, as well as to enter a state of deep sleep. And loss of sleep over several nights in a row can hinder reaction time and boost anxiety and stress.

“If you don’t get cooling periods at night, which we define in this country as less than 20°C at night, sustained temperatures without cooling have worse impacts,” says Montgomery.

The hottest summer ever seen led to apocalyptic scenes in Europe in 2022. Wildfires broke out in France, Portugal and Spain. Italy’s longest river, the Po, ran dry in places, and wrecks of Nazi ships full of explosives were discovered as the Danube fell to record lows. In the UK, temperatures exceeded 40°C (104°F) for the first time.

More than 60,000 people died because of these baking temperatures. The highest mortality rates were in Mediterranean countries, which had some of the biggest temperature anomalies, with temperatures reaching higher than 40°C in Italy, Greece and Spain. These countries also have some of the , whose bodies aren’t as resilient to heat and who are more likely to have chronic illnesses.

“You also get inflammatory responses from heat, so heat exposure in itself triggers all sorts of bad biology in your body, basically, that is directly harmful… and in particular in people with diseases,” says Montgomery.

The frequency of a heat stress day followed by a tropical night of at least 20°C has increased 73 per cent in Europe since the 1970s. These are called “compound events” because the body isn’t able to cool down and recover at night, compounding the heat stress.

Europe has also seen prolonged periods of heat stress become more common. And Africa is now almost three times more likely to suffer hot spells lasting three-quarters of the year or more.

Leaders like US President Donald Trump have made pledges to plant millions of trees while increasing CO2 emissions. But in the case of urban heat, trees can make a big difference. They create areas of shade, and they also draw moisture from the soil, which then evaporates from their leaves, cooling the environment. Neighbourhoods with tree canopies can be as much as than similar places.

But although many cities have started planting trees to deal with heat, a recent found that many still have swathes of territory below the 30 per cent canopy cover that can reduce dangerous heat island effects. More than 90 per cent of the buildings in Paris and London fall below this threshold.