In a new study, our team of scientists investigated how ice melting in Antarctica affects global climate and sea level. We combined computer models of the Antarctic ice sheet, solid Earth and global climate, including atmospheric and oceanic processes, to explore the complex interactions that melting ice has with other parts of the Earth. Understanding what happens to Antarctica's ice matters, because it holds enough frozen water to raise average sea level by about 190 feet (58 meters). As the ice melts, it becomes an existential problem for people and ecosystems in island and coastal communities. The extent to which the Antarctic ice sheet melts will depend on how much the Earth warms. And that depends on future greenhouse gas emissions from sources including vehicles, power plants and industries. Studies suggest that much of the Antarctic ice sheet could survive if countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement goal to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) compared to before the industrial era. However, if emissions continue rising and the atmosphere and oceans warm much more, that could cause substantial melting and much higher sea levels....

Ten years after the Paris agreement was adopted, world leaders left the United Nations COP30 climate summit in Belem, Brazil, with an outcome that kept the process alive but does little to stave off the perils of global warming. Many scientists walked away dismayed and disappointed. Despite years of commitments and research that have laid the groundwork for action, the climate summit of achieved 'essentially nothing', says Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. But, there were some signs of hope that multilateralism can tackle climate change. Over the course of two weeks, representatives from nearly 200 governments worked through hot days, long nights, a fire in the venue and numerous protests ' including by Indigenous groups and others fighting for the protection of the Amazon and other tropical forests. In the end, governments agreed to a package of measures that pushes forward discussions on financial aid and a new 'just transition' mechanism designed to ensure a fair and equitable shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. A glaring omission was language calling for the creation of road maps to phase out fossil fuels and halt deforestation, but Brazil has announced it will push those ideas forward independently of the COP process....

In controversies on global warming, one issue that keeps coming up is whether it is anthropogenic, whether the world getting warmer is our fault. So far as I can tell, the question is almost entirely irrelevant to the controversy, reflects a confusion between moral and practical arguments. Suppose the cause of global warming is not human action but changes in solar activity or some other external factor. Suppose also that the consequences of global warming will be catastrophic. Finally suppose that there is something we can do to prevent global warming, say raising the albedo of the earth with orbital mirrors, high altitude pollution, or whatever. Isn't the argument for doing it precisely the same as if we were causing the warming' Hence isn't 'whose fault is it' an irrelevant distraction' Of course, the questions of causation and prevention are not unrelated. If we are causing global warming that suggests one possible way of preventing it ' stop whatever we are doing that causes it. But doing that might be, very likely is, enormously costly, perhaps more costly than letting global warming happen. It might even be impossible, if what we have already done is enough to cause long run catastrophe even if we don't do any more of it. And even if we are causing it and could stop doing so, there might be better solutions to the problem. Falling birth rates are at present a problem; one of the causes is probably the existence of reliable contraception. It does not follow that the best solution is to ban the birth control pill....

Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government was so concerned about pollution that it introduced temporary restrictions on cars, shut down factories and stopped work on some construction sites. The measures worked and one study later found that levels of air pollution were down 30% during the period when the temporary Olympic restrictions were in place. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Laura Wilcox, a professor at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading in the UK, to understand how China managed to clean up its air pollution. But Wilcox's recent research uncovered some unintended consequences from this cleaner air for the global climate: the pollution was actually helping to cool the atmosphere and by taking it away, it may have accelerated global warming. Wilcox explains: Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps....