A new map traces the sky's water highways 10%

By Siddhant Pusdekar8%

7/14/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Optimism Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 177 hits. Analysis detected 719 faulty-reasoning hits from 718 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.1% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,709 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.00% of the article peer group.

A new global map shows how gigantic bands of water vapor travel along networks of interconnected highways in the sky. 
When these atmospheric rivers make landfall, they can cause floods, blizzrals, landslides and even heat waves. 
But their timing and intensity can be hard to predict. 
The first detailed network of atmospheric rivers spanning the globe might help change that, researchers report June 12 in Earth System Dynamics. 
Although the map is not ready as a forecasting tool, it has revealed previously unknown locales where the rivers intensify by drawing moisture as they travel a few kilometers above Earth’s surface. 
One such fueling station, the east coast of Australia, would not have been picked up by normal mapping methods, says atmospheric scientist Kimberley Reid, who wasn’t involved in the study. 
Some of Australia’s worst floods have been associated with atmospheric rivers, says Reid, of the University of Melbourne. 
A new map shows the sky’s water highways 
The math behind navigation apps helped unveil the pathways of atmospheric rivers 
From the ground, atmospheric rivers might look like endless gray skies. 
But they extend far beyond the horizon, averaging about 2,000 kilometers long and 500 kilometers wide, and carry about the same amount of water that pours out of the Amazon River’s mouth. 
Though they sometimes inundate places like the western United States and Portugal, if they do not pass by, it can mean drought. 
Previous attempts to map atmospheric rivers of the world have been patchy, stopping at the point when they weaken by dumping rain and snow. 
Tobias Braun, a physicist at the Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing at the University of Leipzig in Germany, wanted to follow them across the whole world. 
Each colored blob in this animation shows a different atmospheric river based on nearly a century of records, and a matching colored line tracks its path. 
The researchers covered the globe in hexagonal grids, shown as white lines, to help them track the rivers’ paths. 
Major highways appear as bright blue and white dotted lines; atmospheric rivers pick up vapor along those corridors, bringing rain and snow as they crisscross the globe. 
With colleagues, Braun first compiled a catalog of atmospheric river tracks going back to 1940. 
To make the map, he adapted ideas from the branch of mathematics known as graph theory, which mobile phones use to find the shortest path between two points. 
The research team split up the globe into thousands of hexagonal grids and counted every time an atmospheric river passed between two hexagons. 
As they followed the paths of all rivers in their catalog, the scientists built something like a road network, with major intersections, highways and interconnected regions. 
Some bits of this network  where atmospheric rivers crisscross the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans  are already well known, which told the researchers their method works. 
It also revealed hot spots that have previously received little to no attention. 
These include tangles of interconnected atmospheric river tracks in the Middle East and the Mediterranean Sea, and fueling stations in central Asia and the southern tip of South Africa. 
A flood in Europe is the “downstream end of a pathway we can follow back across the Atlantic,” Braun says. 
“If you know the highways and how they shift with the seasons and with other important climate oscillations, like an El Niño, you have strong evidence on where an atmospheric river may be heading.” 
Atmospheric rivers may deviate from the paths described in the study and those paths are likely to change as the planet warms, Reid says. 
But this approach, she says, shows their typical journey and where they grow and decay, anticipating a future where “we can better predict and prepare for these extreme events.” 
Editor's Note: 
This story was updated July 14, 2026, to note Tobias Braun's affiliation. 
While he is a guest scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, he is affiliated with the Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing at the University of Leipzig. 
Citations 
T. 
Braun et al. 
Atmospheric river trajectories organise along a global transport network. 
Earth System Dynamics. 
2026. doi: 10.5194/esd-17-695-2026 
S.M. 
Vallejo-Bernal et al. 
PIKART: A comprehensive global catalog of atmospheric rivers. 
JGR Atmospheres. 
2025. doi: 10.1029/2024JD041869 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.9%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.9%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 2.1%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 1.5%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.4%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Siddhant Pusdekar: 5.3%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 6.3%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.8%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Siddhant Pusdekar: 4.6%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias7.1%This article: 4.7%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.2%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 5.6%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.9%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.5%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.7%Siddhant Pusdekar: 6.2%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority24.7%This article: 3.1%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.5%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.9%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.9%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.0%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.8%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.9%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.9%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature3.9%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.5%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.6%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Siddhant Pusdekar: 2.0%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.2%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.7%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.9%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 2.8%Siddhant Pusdekar: 1.4%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Siddhant Pusdekar: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

718 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech519writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageKimberley Reid • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKimberley Reid • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageTobias Braun • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageTobias Braun • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageTobias Braun • 20 words • 100.0% coverageTobias Braun • 34 words • 100.0% coverageKimberley Reid • 24 words • 0.0% coverageKimberley Reid • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kimberley Reid

100%flagged-word coverage
101 attributed words51% of attributed speech47% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.