Anthropogenic climate change has increased severity of mid-latitude storms and impacted airport operations

Rapella, Lia; Alberti, Tommaso; Faranda, Davide; Drobinski, Philippe

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219

Preprints

26 Mar 2025

| 26 Mar 2025

Anthropogenic climate change has increased severity of mid-latitude storms and impacted airport operations

Lia Rapella, Tommaso Alberti, Davide Faranda, and Philippe Drobinski

Abstract. The impact of extreme weather events, particularly those associated with tropical and extra-tropical cyclones (TC and ETC), on aviation can rise serious concerns in the context of the ongoing climate change. These events often lead to significant disruptions, including flight cancellations, delays, re-routing, and impacts on airport infrastructure resilience to adverse weather conditions. This study conducts an analysis of the influence of anthropogenic climate change on four recent major storm events that occurred over Europe, the USA, and East Asia, with an in-depth analysis on the Storm Eunice, a powerful ETC that affected the UK and Ireland. Using climate reanalysis data we assess the dynamics of these extreme storms and their implications for aviation operations, particularly during critical phases such as take-off and landing. Our research underscores the growing intensity of extreme storms, particularly stronger winds, driven by human-induced climate change, and stresses the need for taking into account growing climate hazards to optimize planes and airport operations.

Received: 14 Mar 2025 – Discussion started: 26 Mar 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3846 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (3846 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

07 Nov 2025

Anthropogenic climate change has increased severity of mid-latitude storms and impacted airport operations

Lia Rapella, Tommaso Alberti, Davide Faranda, and Philippe Drobinski

Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 1339–1363, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1339-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1339-2025, 2025

Short summary

Lia Rapella, Tommaso Alberti, Davide Faranda, and Philippe Drobinski

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1219', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2025
Summary:
The study uses Faranda’s attribution technique to assess the impact of climate change on four extratropical and tropical storms. The stated goal is to assess the effect of climate change on airport operations, but aside from brief and general statements in the introduction about how air traffic is affected by storms, little connection is made between the effects of climate change and airport opertaions. When reading the abstract and title I was expecting a more detailed and quantitative analysis of how the impacts on airport and flight operations have been affected by climate change. In the summary section, the authors state: “In summary, our findings demonstrate that Eunice-like storms are becoming more severe in the current climate, with significant implications for transportation systems and public safety.” Except for vague allusions this has not at all been addressed in the manuscript. Some suggestions how to address this follow below, and my recommendation is major revisions.
General comments:
The link between the impacts of the effects of climate change and airport operations are superficial and sometimes misleading (e.g., stronger headwind actually improves airplane performance; the authors also suggest an increased risk due to increased tailwinds, which is not likely a big impact because tailwind operations are easily and commonly avoided); while wind shear in downbursts is dangerous, in extratropical cyclones wind shear typically means that the planes take off into the shear, which improves climb performance (likewise, descending into wind shear acts to increase the headwind, so it is not inherently dangerous). So, a much more nuanced analysis is needed when considering the impacts of ETCs on aircraft operations. (I’m not arguing that stronger winds don’t cause disruptions, but the current argument in the manuscript is imprecise.)

My recommendation is that either the “spin” of the paper is adjusted, away from airport operations, and instead putting more emphasis on how the weather systems were affected by climate change. Alternatively, a much more detailed analysis about how climate change actually affected air travel would be needed: Given the increases of turbulence/wind speed, how many more delays happened due to climate change? What are the costs? Wouldn’t this be the questions that stakeholders would be interested in?

Throughout the manuscript, the authors use wind shear (which should have units of 1/s rather than m/s) when I think they mean "bulk wind difference" (which has the unit of m/s).

Specific comments:
Line 35: The impact of wind shear on aircraft performance is too vague.

Line 77: The development or presence of frontal zones?

Line 92: So you are considering the temporal minimum? When the ETC was the most intense?

Line 97: 35-year periods

Line 141: Either use e.g., in front of the Volonte reference, or cite the original study by Browning where the phenomenon is introduced

Line 167: Not sure what you mean by pressure lines becoming narrower. Pressure gradient increasing?

Line 174: Not sure about the tail winds—these are easily avoided by choosing the appropriate runway.

Line 178: Shear has the units s-1—you probably mean wind difference?

Line 210, 225: precipitation (no plural)

Line 237: “Very extremely high” is a little excessive. Just state that there was an anomaly of +7 K.

Line 244: Suggest starting a new paragraph here.

Line 248, 251: Wind speed gradients have the unit of s-1.

Line 251, 254: Wind shear (commonly used in its singular form); also, incorrect units.

Line 255: Not sure why turbulence suggests frontogenesis; please provide additional justification, or omit.

Line 258: Check units of the wind speed gradients.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lia Rapella, 26 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1219/egusphere-2025-1219-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1219', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 May 2025
Review egusphere-2025-1219
The impact of climate change on the intensity of mid-latitude cyclones, and their effect on airport operations, is analysed in this manuscript. Focussing on four recent case studies, the authors use a storm analogue method to compare the storms to four similar ones found in an earlier time period. As the earlier time period has been less impacted by climate change, the differences in storm intensity are attributed to the effects of climate change. In most of the cases, human-induced climate change is found to intensify the storms, in either (or both) their wind speeds and precipitation. The authors highlight the impacts these storms had on airport operations and discuss how these may change as the climate continues to change.
The paper is well written, the analyses appropriate for the stated aims, and the conclusions supported by the evidence presented. I think the manuscript will be of interest to the readers of WCD and I believe the manuscript will be suitable for publication following a minor revision. I have some comments that I would appreciate the authors’ thoughts on before I recommend the article be ready for publication.

Mains comments:
This first comment relates to the analogue method.

As I understand it, the analogue method only considers the time of maximum intensity when looking for similar cyclones in the earlier period. I wonder how different the analogues would be (and therefore also the results) if you took into account the cyclone development. In terms of impacts, particularly for precipitation, the development period of the cyclone may matter more in terms of overall similarity than only the time of maximum intensity. I assume it should not be too difficult to look for analogues at various times before maximum intensity to see if the results are sensitive to this. Finding analogues that remained similar throughout their lifecycle may find cyclones that are more representative of the cyclones from the current period.
2. This comment relates to the modes of variability considered.
When accounting for low frequency variability you consider ENSO, the AMO and PDO indices. I was surprised you did not include the NAO as this is well known to greatly impact both the frequency and intensity of extratropical cyclones (granted for the North Atlantic/Europe primarily). Have you tested whether including the NAO in your assessment of natural variability changes your results? Some discussion relating to this is needed regardless.

Minor comments:
L26: How many days/weeks is 165000 minutes? Might be useful for the reader to include that here.
L25-33: It might be useful to add context to this paragraph. E.g. why is it of importance.
L61: you consider only ground level conditions impacting take-off and landing, could higher level (but still in the lower atmosphere) also prevent take-off and landing?
L67: Do you have any comments about the resolution of ERA5 when considering airport impacts? Many processes that are relevant may not be well represented in ERA5.
L124: as mentioned earlier I would argue the NAO is more important in the North Atlantic.
Conclusions: Do you have any thoughts on why climate change is making storms more intense? It would be good to add some discussion here detailing your thoughts.

Technical corrections:
L59: since —> as
L154: “Results by comparing..” I am not sure that this makes sense.
L157: cyclone eye —> cyclone centre
L236: “very extremely high” do not need very and extremely. (And L237).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lia Rapella, 26 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1219/egusphere-2025-1219-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1219', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2025
Summary:
The study uses Faranda’s attribution technique to assess the impact of climate change on four extratropical and tropical storms. The stated goal is to assess the effect of climate change on airport operations, but aside from brief and general statements in the introduction about how air traffic is affected by storms, little connection is made between the effects of climate change and airport opertaions. When reading the abstract and title I was expecting a more detailed and quantitative analysis of how the impacts on airport and flight operations have been affected by climate change. In the summary section, the authors state: “In summary, our findings demonstrate that Eunice-like storms are becoming more severe in the current climate, with significant implications for transportation systems and public safety.” Except for vague allusions this has not at all been addressed in the manuscript. Some suggestions how to address this follow below, and my recommendation is major revisions.
General comments:
The link between the impacts of the effects of climate change and airport operations are superficial and sometimes misleading (e.g., stronger headwind actually improves airplane performance; the authors also suggest an increased risk due to increased tailwinds, which is not likely a big impact because tailwind operations are easily and commonly avoided); while wind shear in downbursts is dangerous, in extratropical cyclones wind shear typically means that the planes take off into the shear, which improves climb performance (likewise, descending into wind shear acts to increase the headwind, so it is not inherently dangerous). So, a much more nuanced analysis is needed when considering the impacts of ETCs on aircraft operations. (I’m not arguing that stronger winds don’t cause disruptions, but the current argument in the manuscript is imprecise.)

My recommendation is that either the “spin” of the paper is adjusted, away from airport operations, and instead putting more emphasis on how the weather systems were affected by climate change. Alternatively, a much more detailed analysis about how climate change actually affected air travel would be needed: Given the increases of turbulence/wind speed, how many more delays happened due to climate change? What are the costs? Wouldn’t this be the questions that stakeholders would be interested in?

Throughout the manuscript, the authors use wind shear (which should have units of 1/s rather than m/s) when I think they mean "bulk wind difference" (which has the unit of m/s).

Specific comments:
Line 35: The impact of wind shear on aircraft performance is too vague.

Line 77: The development or presence of frontal zones?

Line 92: So you are considering the temporal minimum? When the ETC was the most intense?

Line 97: 35-year periods

Line 141: Either use e.g., in front of the Volonte reference, or cite the original study by Browning where the phenomenon is introduced

Line 167: Not sure what you mean by pressure lines becoming narrower. Pressure gradient increasing?

Line 174: Not sure about the tail winds—these are easily avoided by choosing the appropriate runway.

Line 178: Shear has the units s-1—you probably mean wind difference?

Line 210, 225: precipitation (no plural)

Line 237: “Very extremely high” is a little excessive. Just state that there was an anomaly of +7 K.

Line 244: Suggest starting a new paragraph here.

Line 248, 251: Wind speed gradients have the unit of s-1.

Line 251, 254: Wind shear (commonly used in its singular form); also, incorrect units.

Line 255: Not sure why turbulence suggests frontogenesis; please provide additional justification, or omit.

Line 258: Check units of the wind speed gradients.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lia Rapella, 26 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1219/egusphere-2025-1219-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1219', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 May 2025
Review egusphere-2025-1219
The impact of climate change on the intensity of mid-latitude cyclones, and their effect on airport operations, is analysed in this manuscript. Focussing on four recent case studies, the authors use a storm analogue method to compare the storms to four similar ones found in an earlier time period. As the earlier time period has been less impacted by climate change, the differences in storm intensity are attributed to the effects of climate change. In most of the cases, human-induced climate change is found to intensify the storms, in either (or both) their wind speeds and precipitation. The authors highlight the impacts these storms had on airport operations and discuss how these may change as the climate continues to change.
The paper is well written, the analyses appropriate for the stated aims, and the conclusions supported by the evidence presented. I think the manuscript will be of interest to the readers of WCD and I believe the manuscript will be suitable for publication following a minor revision. I have some comments that I would appreciate the authors’ thoughts on before I recommend the article be ready for publication.

Mains comments:
This first comment relates to the analogue method.

As I understand it, the analogue method only considers the time of maximum intensity when looking for similar cyclones in the earlier period. I wonder how different the analogues would be (and therefore also the results) if you took into account the cyclone development. In terms of impacts, particularly for precipitation, the development period of the cyclone may matter more in terms of overall similarity than only the time of maximum intensity. I assume it should not be too difficult to look for analogues at various times before maximum intensity to see if the results are sensitive to this. Finding analogues that remained similar throughout their lifecycle may find cyclones that are more representative of the cyclones from the current period.
2. This comment relates to the modes of variability considered.
When accounting for low frequency variability you consider ENSO, the AMO and PDO indices. I was surprised you did not include the NAO as this is well known to greatly impact both the frequency and intensity of extratropical cyclones (granted for the North Atlantic/Europe primarily). Have you tested whether including the NAO in your assessment of natural variability changes your results? Some discussion relating to this is needed regardless.

Minor comments:
L26: How many days/weeks is 165000 minutes? Might be useful for the reader to include that here.
L25-33: It might be useful to add context to this paragraph. E.g. why is it of importance.
L61: you consider only ground level conditions impacting take-off and landing, could higher level (but still in the lower atmosphere) also prevent take-off and landing?
L67: Do you have any comments about the resolution of ERA5 when considering airport impacts? Many processes that are relevant may not be well represented in ERA5.
L124: as mentioned earlier I would argue the NAO is more important in the North Atlantic.
Conclusions: Do you have any thoughts on why climate change is making storms more intense? It would be good to add some discussion here detailing your thoughts.

Technical corrections:
L59: since —> as
L154: “Results by comparing..” I am not sure that this makes sense.
L157: cyclone eye —> cyclone centre
L236: “very extremely high” do not need very and extremely. (And L237).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lia Rapella, 26 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1219/egusphere-2025-1219-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1219-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Lia Rapella on behalf of the Authors (11 Jun 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Jun 2025) by Christian Grams

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Jul 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Jul 2025)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Summary:

I re-read the manuscript, and I only have a few minor comments.

Comments:

1. Line 16: CIT: Convectively (or convection) induced turbulence

2. Line 22: It’s probably more accurate that the flight climb gradient is changed in vertical wind shear. Assuming a constant speed climb, lift ought to be largely unchanged.

3. Line 32: Weather shock: Maybe say rapid weather changes?

4. Line 54: Consider the paper by Brooks et al. (2014, Science) which did not find that tornadoes become more frequent.

5. Line 79: Suggest rewording underline: stress/empasize

6. Line 82: The sentence starting with “Indeed…” is very long; consider breaking it up into 2-3 sentences.

7. Line 99: Lift is strongly tied to the airspeed and angle of attack, so wind shear indirectly influences lift via the airspeed (if the aircraft enters e.g., a layer of stronger winds, its airspeed increases; during a constant-speed initial climb, this translates to an increased climb gradient). I think vertical flight path or climb/descent angle/gradient would be more accurate.

8. Line 101: The product of bulk wind difference (m/s) and rate of deformation (1/s) would be m/s^2, and not 1/s, no?

9. Line 157: Additional figures … you didn’t mention any figures, so this pointer seems a little out of place.

10. Line 238: Reword: Not sure what you mean by “These winds enhanced precipitation”

11. Line 256: Apart from

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (25 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (30 Jul 2025) by Christian Grams

AR by Lia Rapella on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (05 Sep 2025) by Christian Grams

Dear authors,

due to the unavailability of the previous reviewers, I decided to provide another full editorial review at this stage. With that I do not aim to provide a lot of new comments, but - on behalf of the previous reviewers - I want to check that the raised concern were adequately addressed and that the manuscript fulfills the standards of WCD.
Overall I thank you for this further improved version of the manuscript and will be able to accept the manuscript for publication if some remaining comments are addressed, as follows.

Kind regards
Christian Grams

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General comments:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. After the major concern of R3, I miss an appropriate discussion already in the introduction of other factors influencing variability in impacts, such as internal climate variability, in particular interannual and decadal variability (which also affect large-scale patterns, that affect ETC occurrence, e.g. Dorrington and Strommen 2020). In that sense the major concern of R3 is not sufficiently adressed, yet. I ask to discuss the relevant literature in the introduction already to provide a more balanced introduction, given the relatively short comparison periods for factual and counterfactual periods, and caveats in ERA5 stability across these periods.

2. Also the potential role of an evolving observational network should be discussed at some places (Data / Methods, Discussion). The study should build trust in the long term stability and robustness of trends in variables considered here, as well as the potential effect of an evolving observational network on the results of the attribution framework.

3. As described at the moment, the study is not easily reproducible! What is missing is more background on which times / regions contribute to the analogues. I.e. is the geographical extent fixed, or in a moving frame? (if moving land-sea mask, orography would affect the composite), what are the timesteps? How many individual cases contribute to the analogue? Some of the information might be found in the methodological references. But the paper must be self-standing, and the results reproducible. A list of the time steps in the analogue composites is the least what should be provided along with some more technical information on the geographic extent of analogues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific comments, line numbers refer to the ATC-2 version of the manuscript.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

l19 the reference from 1993 seems quite old regarding the fact that technology to detect and avoid convection has improved. Consider referring to a newer study.

l28-31 Here you are citing studies which investigate specific years or episodes which were characterised by an increase of a specific weather phenomon which had impact on air traffic. In the light of R3's major comment you should mention the fact that interannual variability can explain differences in the number of incidents in these specific years. Perhaps this is a good place to introduce interannual variability.

l72 For Table 1 the abbreviations of major airports need to be introduced by first naming the cities or naming the cities in the table (caption) (as in Figure 1). In Figure 1 the introduction of abbreviations comes too late.

l84 typo emphasize

l110 as WCD is a journal with focus more on fundamental research rather than applied reseach I want to ask to actually show the formulae for TI1 and TI2, expalining with variables also which shear and deformation definition you mean and to explain how you compute it from ERA5 output. Also rather show formula as numbered equations than inline (also pertains to EDR l 119).

Section 2.1: As you are using ERA5 for trend assesment of ERA5-derived impact variables, you have to discuss the long-term stability and how suitable ERA5 is for trend estimates in the variables used. Please discuss the relevant findings and supporting evidence from Bell et al. 2021, Soci et al. 2024 and, for the large-scale circulation, Simmons (2022). In particular the role of an evolving (surface) obsrtvational network for the detected trends in surface weather impacts must be discussed.

Did you use the latest release of the ERA5 back extension (Soci et al. 2024), which has improved track forecast for TCs in 1950s-1970s?

Section 2.2 For reproducibility, please also state how the teleconnection indices NAO etc. are computed or where they are retrieved from.
Also for reproducibility and avoiding the need to look it up in (the various) methodological paper, please state how many analogues contribute in each case study to the factual and counterfactual composites, both in terms of time steps and distinct analogue cases. Also state if the geographical area in which analogues are taken from is moving in space or geographically fixed. The paper must be self-contained in its essential parts.

Figure 1 differences in lower row: It is very difficult to discern shading vs. no-shading . It could be interpreted as the value "0.0". Either use a mask or a different color (white, grey) than on the color bar to discern non-significant areas.

Figure 4 caption: Make even clearer that the data are for all dates (months) in the respective periods and the dot is for the actual event date (here 18.2.2022). According changes for similar plots in discussion of other cases.

Discussion of North American Winter storm: It would be easier to start with the discussion of Figure 6, just for avoiding keeping scrolling back and forth from text to appendix figures. Or relocate Figure A7 to the main.

lines 340-344: repeat that this statement refers only to the analogues for Storm Eunice and the picture looks different for the European summer storm, and the North American and Typhoon examples.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bell, B., Hersbach, H., Simmons, A., Berrisford, P., Dahlgren, P., Horányi, A., et al. (2021) The ERA5 global reanalysis: Preliminary extension to 1950. Q J R Meteorol Soc, 147(741, 4186–4227. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4174

Dorrington, J., & Strommen, K. J. (2020). Jet speed variability obscures Euro-Atlantic regime structure. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL087907. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087907

Simmons, A. J.: Trends in the tropospheric general circulation from 1979 to 2022, Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 777–809, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-777-2022, 2022.

Soci, C., Hersbach, H., Simmons, A., Poli, P., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., et al. (2024) The ERA5 global reanalysis from 1940 to 2022. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 150(764), 4014–4048. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4803

Hide

AR by Lia Rapella on behalf of the Authors (15 Sep 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (26 Sep 2025) by Christian Grams

AR by Lia Rapella on behalf of the Authors (02 Oct 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

07 Nov 2025

Anthropogenic climate change has increased severity of mid-latitude storms and impacted airport operations

Lia Rapella, Tommaso Alberti, Davide Faranda, and Philippe Drobinski

Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 1339–1363, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1339-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-1339-2025, 2025

Short summary

Lia Rapella, Tommaso Alberti, Davide Faranda, and Philippe Drobinski

Viewed

Total article views: 1,024 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
746	255	23	1,024	25	35

HTML: 746
PDF: 255
XML: 23
Total: 1,024
BibTeX: 25
EndNote: 35

Views and downloads (calculated since 26 Mar 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2025	60	10	2	72
Apr 2025	42	16	4	62
May 2025	52	30	5	87
Jun 2025	41	13	6	60
Jul 2025	31	26	0	57
Aug 2025	82	123	2	207
Sep 2025	383	8	2	393
Oct 2025	44	19	2	65
Nov 2025	11	10	0	21

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 26 Mar 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2025	60	10	2	72
Apr 2025	42	16	4	62
May 2025	52	30	5	87
Jun 2025	41	13	6	60
Jul 2025	31	26	0	57
Aug 2025	82	123	2	207
Sep 2025	383	8	2	393
Oct 2025	44	19	2	65
Nov 2025	11	10	0	21

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 996 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 996 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 07 Nov 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3846 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Extreme weather events pose increasing challenges for aviation, including flight disruptions and infrastructure damage. This study examines the influence of anthropogenic climate change on four recent major storms across Europe, the USA, and East Asia. Our research underscores the growing intensity of extreme storms, driven by human-induced climate change, underscoring the need to adapt aviation strategies to an increasingly hazardous environment.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0