www.msn.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
204.79.197.203
Public Scan
Submitted URL: https://mucp.api.account.microsoft.com/m/v2/c?r=AIAACCATE74SSX6RE4I2L5JLGIQPUEQDDWAB6MDEAXYBJ766OOCXU4KFGWZS5SXB7DDYDB7GW5NTIVO7JEKVFFT...
Effective URL: https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-hilary-2023-category-4-storm-path-has-southern-california-bra...
Submission: On August 18 via api from BE — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-hilary-2023-category-4-storm-path-has-southern-california-bra...
Submission: On August 18 via api from BE — Scanned from DE
Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOMText Content
Hurricane Hilary is rapidly intensifying in the Pacific Ocean and could bring heavy rain and flash flooding to southern California and Nevada by the weekend, forecasters said. The hurricane could potentially bring “significant impacts” to parts of the Baja California Peninsula and the southwestern United States this weekend, including rainfall of up to 12 inches in the Southern California mountains, according to the National Hurricane Center. As of Friday morning, Hilary had maximum sustained winds of 145 mph and had reached Category 4 status, according to the hurricane center. It is forecast to be near or over the central Baja coast Sunday. Rain is forecast to begin arriving in Southern California starting Sunday night. Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning. Friday updates: Hurricane Hilary tracker, map as storm moves toward U.S. Hilary could be the first tropical storm to make landfall in California since 1939, according to federal weather officials. Tropical Storm Kay brought heavy rain and flooding to Southern California last year despite not making landfall. "The combination of heavy rainfall, the potential for flash flooding, and strong winds could very well make this a high impact event for Southern California," Samantha Connolly, a National Weather Service meteorologist in San Diego, wrote in a Thursday morning forecast. The hurricane center doesn't rule out a landfall farther in California. "Although there is fairly high confidence in the track prediction, Hilary's oblique angle of approach to the west coast of the Baja California peninsula makes it nearly impossible to know at this point if the center will remain just offshore or move over the peninsula before reaching the southwestern United States," Richard Pasch, a senior hurricane specialist at the center wrote in a Thursday forecast. HOW MUCH RAINFALL COULD HURRICANE HILARY BRING? Hilary is expected to bring a risk of flash flooding and heavy rainfall in southern California, southern Nevada and western Arizona, the hurricane center said. Here's the weather service rain forecast for California, in inches. * Coast/Valleys: 2-2.5 * Mojave Desert: 3-5 * Mountains: 4-10, with up to 12 inches on the eastern mountain slopes * Lower Deserts: 4-7 The most rainfall ever recorded during the month of August in San Diego was 2.13 inches in 1977, the weather service said Thursday. Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he is "increasingly concerned" regarding the potential for widespread and potentially severe flash flooding across interior portions of southern California and Nevada on Sunday and Monday. The greatest concern would be east-facing slopes, but even lower deserts could see "extremely heavy rainfall," Swain posted on X, formerly Twitter. Here's a look at Hurricane Hilary's expected path: HURRICANE HILARY PATH TRACKER 2023 HURRICANE HILARY SPHAGETTI MODEL This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Hurricane Hilary 2023: Category 4 storm path has California bracing for heavy rain, floods Continue reading Sponsored Content MORE FROM USA TODAY Zoo Pals plates are back after nearly a decade and they already sold out on AmazonHozier recalls 'super moving' jam session at Joni Mitchell's house: 'We all worship Joni'Dog days of summer? Expect to see Halloween stuff in stores, and it's there earlier each year Visit USA TODAY MORE FOR YOU Would the weather in Montana change tomorrow if the state suddenly shut down all of its coal mines, natural gas power plants, and oil refineries? Any honest scientist would tell you no. But according to a far-left state judge, the wealthiest children in Montana will suddenly be able to ski again if the state’s Department of Environmental Quality stops issuing new permits for infrastructure projects that use fossil fuels. THE GEORGIA INDICTMENT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY YET The ruling is abjectly absurd, but there are dozens more cases like it in federal and state courts across the country. If any of them were to be confirmed on appeal, it would be disastrous for the economy. The plaintiffs in Montana include 16 children who claim they have experienced “fear,” “distress,” “a sense of loss,” and “despair” because of climate change. Some of these poor dears lament that they haven’t been able to ski, paddleboard, or kayak as much as they otherwise would have if it were not so hot outside. Is your heart bleeding for them? These children claim that Montana’s Constitution, which guarantees residents “the right to a clean and beautiful environment,” conflicts with the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which since 2011 prevents state officials from considering “actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders” when approving permits for infrastructure projects. The legislature further clarified the law after the suit was filed, making it explicit that consideration of “greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impact to the climate” is not allowed. If only the Montana Environmental Policy Act forced the Department of Environmental Quality to consider carbon emissions when approving a new road or power plant, the plaintiffs' reason, then fewer projects would be approved, less carbon would be emitted, and their lives would be better. This is a fairy tale. Just look at the science. Let’s say the plaintiffs get their way and the DEQ not only started disapproving every construction permit in Montana, but also required every power plant, oil refinery, and coal mine to shut down. Zero carbon emissions from the entire state of Montana tomorrow. What would happen to the climate? Nothing. Even if the entire world stopped emitting all carbon tomorrow, the climate would still get warmer for decades. But the world isn’t going to stop emitting carbon tomorrow. Nor will it even cut carbon in half by 2030. China is adding two coal power plants a week, and it already emits almost 12 billion metric tons of carbon a year, double the United States’s 5.6 billion. The U.S. emits just 14% of the world’s carbon and Montana makes up less than 1% of that total. Eliminating all Montana’s carbon emissions wouldn’t affect the climate at all. When the judge concludes that Montana’s carbon emissions “have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts,” she is talking nonsense. There is no scientific foundation for her statement. Without evidence showing that lowering Montana's carbon output would change the climate in Montana, the plaintiffs have no case. But while decarbonizing Montana overnight would do nothing to affect the climate, it would devastate Montana’s economy. Montana has 5,000 gas wells, 4,000 oil wells, four oil refineries, and six coal mines. All these businesses and their employees would be out of work and every Montanan that relied on the energy from them would see their energy costs rise. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The reality is that Montana is doing just fine without leftist judges trying to halt infrastructure projects. Under the law that the judge wants to overturn, Montana generates 53% of its electricity from renewables, which places the state 10th best in the nation. Montanans love the outdoors, which is why the state already has strong environmental protections for air and water quality. Its legislators balance the costs of environmental regulation with economic growth — these are, obviously, political decisions — and we’re certain Montana’s appeals court will see it that way. Tags: Editorials, Climate Change, Energy and Environment, Montana, State Courts Original Author: Washington Examiner Original Location: Science loses in Montana court Continue reading Sponsored Content MORE FROM Washington Examiner Kid Rock caught on camera drinking Bud Light months after shooting up caseTrump campaign mum amid reports he will spurn GOP debate for Tucker CarlsonCentrist Democrat bashes student debt relief as 'handouts' for 'the Twitterati' Visit Washington Examiner TRENDING STORIES 1. Broadway actor Chris Peluso, known for Mamma Mia and Wicked, dies at 40Entertainment Weekly 2. Missouri Boy Boats Massive Blue Catfish Weighing More Than 100 PoundsField and Stream 3. One Of Strongest Heat Domes To Spread Triple-Digit Record Highs From Midwest To SouthThe Weather Channel 4. Footage of Lufthansa plane deep in water shows extent of Germany floodsTheStreet MORE FOR YOU * © 2023 Microsoft * Your Privacy Choices * Privacy & Cookies * Terms of use * Advertise Feedback