Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Thanh-Son Pham, ARC DECRA Fellow in Geophysics, Australian National University

Glacial earthquakes are a special type of earthquake generated in cold, icy regions. First discovered in the northern hemisphere more than 20 years ago, these quakes occur when huge chunks of ice fall from glaciers into the sea.

Until now, only a very few have been found in the Antarctic. In a new study soon to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, I present evidence for hundreds of these quakes in Antarctica between 2010 and 2023, mostly at the ocean end of the Thwaites Glacier – the so-called Doomsday Glacier that could send sea levels rising rapidly if it were to collapse.

A recent discovery

A glacial earthquake is created when tall, thin icebergs fall off the end of a glacier into the ocean.

When these icebergs capsize, they clash violently with the “mother” glacier. The clash generates strong mechanical ground vibrations, or seismic waves, that propagate thousands of kilometres from the origin.

What makes glacial earthquakes unique is that they do not generate any high-frequency seismic waves. These waves play a vital role in the detection and location of typical seismic sources, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and nuclear explosions.

Due to this difference, glacial earthquakes were only discovered relatively recently, despite other seismic sources having been documented routinely for several decades.

Varying with the seasons

Most glacial earthquakes detected so far have been located near the ends of glaciers in Greenland, the largest ice cap in the northern hemisphere.

The Greenland glacial earthquakes are relatively large in magnitude. The largest ones are similar in size to those caused by nuclear tests conducted by North Korea in the past two decades. As such, they have been detected by a high-quality, continuously operating seismic monitoring network worldwide.

The Greenland events vary with the seasons, occurring more often in late summer. They have also become more common in recent decades. The signs may be associated with a faster rate of global warming in the polar regions.

Elusive evidence

Although Antarctica is the largest ice sheet on Earth, direct evidence of glacial earthquakes caused by capsizing icebergs there has been elusive. Most previous attempts to detect Antarctic glacial earthquakes used the worldwide network of seismic detectors.

However, if Antarctic glacial earthquakes are of much lower magnitude than those in Greenland, the global network may not detect them.

In my new study, I used seismic stations in Antarctica itself to look for signs of these quakes. My search turned up more than 360 glacier seismic events, most of which are not yet included in any earthquake catalogue.

The events I detected were in two clusters, near Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers. These glaciers have been the largest sources of sea-level rise from Antarctica.

Earthquakes at the Doomsday Glacier

Thwaites Glacier is sometimes known as the Doomsday Glacier. If it were to collapse completely it would raise global sea levels by 3 metres, and it also has the potential to fall apart rapidly.

About two-thirds of the events I detected – 245 out of 362 – were located near the marine end of Thwaites. Most of these events are likely glacial earthquakes due to capsizing icebergs.

The strongest driver of such events does not appear to be the annual oscillation of warm air temperatures that drives the seasonal behaviour of Greenland glacier earthquakes.

Instead, the most prolific period of glacial earthquakes at Thwaites, between 2018 and 2020, coincides with a period of accelerated flow of the glacier’s ice tongue towards the sea. The ice-tongue speed-up period was independently confirmed by satellite observations.

This speed-up could have been caused by ocean conditions, the effect of which is not yet well understood.

The findings suggest the short-term scale impact of ocean states on the stability of marine-terminating glaciers. This is worth further exploration to assess the potential contribution of the glacier to future sea-level rise.

The second largest cluster of detections occurred near the Pine Island Glacier. However, these were consistently located 60–80 kilometres from the waterfront, so they are not likely to have been caused by capsizing icebergs.

These events remain puzzling and require follow-up research.

What’s next for Antarctic glacial earthquake research

The detection of glacial earthquakes associated with iceberg calving at Thwaites Glacier could help answer several important research questions. These include a fundamental question about the potential instability of the Thwaites Glacier due to the interaction of the ocean, ice and solid ground near where it meets the sea.

Better understanding may hold the key to resolving the current large uncertainty in the projected sea-level rise over the next couple of centuries.

Thanh-Son Pham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Hundreds of iceberg earthquakes detected at the crumbling end of Antarctica’s Doomsday Glacier – https://theconversation.com/hundreds-of-iceberg-earthquakes-detected-at-the-crumbling-end-of-antarcticas-doomsday-glacier-268893

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Yaqoot Fatima, Professor of Sleep Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

You’ve probably experienced it – your alarm is set for 6:30am, yet somehow your eyes snap open a few minutes before it goes off. There’s no sound, no external cue, just the body somehow knowing it’s time.

It might seem strange, but you didn’t wake up by chance. It’s your body clock at work – an amazingly precise internal timing system that regulates when you sleep and wake.

But how exactly does this built-in alarm clock work?

A hormonal wake-up call

Deep in the brain is a small group of neurons called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, often referred to as the body’s “master clock”. These neurons keep track of time by coordinating internal rhythms such as circadian rhythm (aligned with the 24-hour day) to regulate things like sleep, body temperature, hunger and digestion.

The circadian rhythm influences when we feel sleepy and alert each day. Our bodies set the master clock naturally, and it is completely normal to see variation in the timing of when people prefer to sleep and be awake.

Have you ever wondered why some people are “morning people”, preferring to catch the sunrise and hit the pillow early at night, and others are “night owls”, staying up late and sleeping till mid-morning? This is because of differences in their circadian rhythm.

Regular sleep and wake, meal and exercise routines program our master clock so it starts to predict when these behaviours will happen each day and begin releasing related hormones accordingly.

For example, when we wake up in the morning, we experience a phenomenon known as the “cortisol awakening response”. This is a significant spike in cortisol – a hormone thought to help us prepare for the day and feel energised.

For people who have very consistent rise times and morning light exposure, the master clock learns when they usually get up. Well before their alarm sounds, it gently prepares the body: the temperature rises, melatonin (a sleepiness hormone) levels fall, and cortisol levels start to climb.

By the time their alarm is due, the body is already transitioning into wakefulness. Think of it as a sort of hormonal wake-up call.

A well-synced rhythm or poor sleep quality?

If you often wake a few minutes before your alarm and feel alert and rested, it’s a sign your circadian rhythm is finely tuned. Your body clock has learned to anticipate your routine and help you transition smoothly from sleep to wakefulness.

However, if you wake before your alarm but feel groggy or restless, it might signal poor sleep quality rather than a well-synced rhythm.

Having a regular bedtime and awakening schedule helps train the body’s internal clock, especially when it stays aligned with natural cues in your environment, such as changes in light and temperature throughout the day.

This will make it easier to fall asleep and wake up feeling refreshed. A regular sleep-wake schedule will help your body “keep track of time” and can teach the body to predict when it’s time to wake up.

On the other hand, an irregular sleep schedule can confuse these internal bodily rhythms, leading to drowsiness and difficulty concentrating and performing mental tasks.

Without a consistent sleep pattern, the body will rely on an alarm to wake up, potentially waking you in deeper stages of sleep and leaving you with that groggy feeling (known as sleep inertia).

In that case, reviewing your sleep hygiene and making small changes to your habits can realign your body’s internal clock, helping you wake naturally and feel truly rested.

Why is it hard to switch off?

Stress and anxiety can increase levels of cortisol – the same hormone that naturally increases in the morning to help you wake up – making it harder to stay asleep or triggering early awakening.

Anticipation of exciting events can also make it difficult to sleep, as a high state of arousal makes your brain stay alert, leading to lighter sleep and premature awakenings. These situations are common and are normal from time to time; however, they may cause longer-term sleep problems if they happen too often.

In the pre-industrial era, people followed environmental cues from the sun and the moon to guide their sleep patterns.

In modern times, waking naturally without an alarm can be hard. But when it happens, it’s a strong sign that you’ve had enough rest and that your body clock is healthy and well-aligned.

Training your body to wake up without an alarm is possible by adopting the following strategies: prioritising a consistent sleep schedule with 7–8 hours of sleep (including on weekends); avoiding sleep disruptions due to caffeine, alcohol or heavy meals; creating a dark sleep environment and avoiding screens before bed; and ensuring exposure to natural sunlight in the morning.

Yaqoot Fatima receives funding from MRFF, NHMRC and Beyond Blue.

Alexandra Metse has received funding from the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, MRFF, the Waterloo Foundation, and the NSW Department of Education. She is a member of the Australasian Sleep Association.

Danielle Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do we wake up shortly before our alarm goes off? It’s not by chance – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-wake-up-shortly-before-our-alarm-goes-off-its-not-by-chance-268992

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Liam Burke, Associate Professor and Cinema and Screen Studies Discipline Leader, Swinburne University of Technology

The world’s dominant streaming service, Netflix, has announced its planned acquisition of Warner Bros with a deal valued at US$82.7 billion (A$124.5 billion).

The acquisition has provoked criticism from film fans, the creative community and the United States government, including concerns for the future of filmgoing. News of the acquisition was also followed by a hostile bid (a bid that goes directly to shareholders, not the board), from Paramount Skydance.

Jane Fonda described the Netflix deal as “catastrophic”, saying it “threatens the entire entertainment industry”.

Since emerging as the global leader in streaming, Netflix has avoided acquisitions while its competitors have bought up legacy assets, like Amazon’s purchase of MGM in 2022. Rather than buy existing intellectual property, Netflix sought to build new brands such as Stranger Things and Squid Game.

However, it is rare that a 100-year archive like Warner Bros – which ranges from Looney Tunes cartoons to Emmy-magnet The White Lotus – would come up for sale. The deal would bolster Netflix’s library and save expensive licensing costs. There’s no need to pay for ten seasons of Friends if you own the company.

The acquisition raises questions on the consolidation of streaming services. But one of the most immediate concerns is the impact on filmgoing.

Do we still go to the cinema?

Cinema attendance has been falling since the rise of global streaming. This decline was exacerbated by the pandemic: 2025’s global box office will be down 13% from pre-COVID times.

Netflix occasionally releases films in a handful of theatres for extremely limited runs to qualify for awards such as the Oscars, which require a cinematic release. But Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has repeatedly stated Netflix’s priority is at home rather than theatres.

While blockbusters from the Warner Bros studio like Batman and Minecraft are likely to still be released in cinemas under the new super-company, original and mid-budget films may not get the same opportunity.

Ironically, the proposed deal is coming at a time when Warner Bros is having a very successful run of auteur-led films in theatres, such as Ryan Coogler’s Sinners and Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another.

Commenting on the deal, Sarandos said Netflix would look to make the time between films being exclusively in cinemas and available at home more “consumer friendly” – meaning the company will look to have short cinema runs and a quick pivot to streaming services.

Theatrical windows have been shrinking. The original Top Gun is often credited with starting the home video revolution when it sold a then-record 2.9 million VHS cassettes in 1987, but that was ten months after it had been a hit in cinemas.

Even in 2010, when the Walt Disney Company sought to shorten the home video release window of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland to 12 weeks, the British theatre chain Odeon threatened not to exhibit the film. Today, blockbusters like Wicked can fly to premium video on demand in a few weeks.

Many theatrical films earn the majority of their box office in the first two weeks of release, and so longer exclusive windows are arguably a case of diminishing returns. However, this doesn’t always hold true.

Earlier this year, Warner Bros’ vampire movie Sinners opened modestly in cinemas. But the film sustained its audience over several weeks on its way to becoming the highest grossing original film at the US box office in years, taking in over US$260 million (A$390 million).

Cinephiles argue original films like Sinners need time to find a cinema audience, and the film’s many musical and horror setpieces are amplified by the communal experience of the theatre.

Challenges ahead

Skydance is also looking to add the studio to its growing portfolio, after its recent purchase of Paramount.

Skydance owner David Ellison has demonstrated his commitment to cinemas by promising Paramount will release 30 films in theatres a year with “healthy traditional windows”.

The deal will also come under regulatory scrutiny due to antitrust concerns. It unites top streamers Netflix and HBO as well as the film studio, removing a significant buyer from the market. Such anti-competitive rationale was used under the Biden administration to successfully block the proposed merger of book publishers Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

One note of optimism is that Netflix has recently demonstrated a willingness to deviate from its founding principles. When the streaming service first launched, it positioned itself in opposition to broadcast and cable television by dropping all episodes of a season at once, not streaming live content or sport, and shunning advertising. Netflix has rolled back these three tenets in recent years in response to the shifting marketplace.

Perhaps the service’s stubborn refusal to embrace filmgoing is another long-held principle it will abandon if audiences are eager.

New research shows young people are craving in-person entertainment, still a novelty for digital natives.

This appetite for experiences has fuelled the recent success in cinemas of A Minecraft Movie, Taylor Swift concert films, and KPop Demon Hunters sing-along – months after it was originally released on Netflix.

If cinema’s reassert themselves as a lively communal space, perhaps this is one experience the newly diversified Netflix will buy a ticket for.

Liam Burke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Netflix is buying Warner Brothers. Is this the end of the cinema? – https://theconversation.com/netflix-is-buying-warner-brothers-is-this-the-end-of-the-cinema-271518

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

This week, US President Donald Trump approved previously banned exports of Nvidia’s powerful H200 artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China.

In return, the US government will receive 25% of the sales revenue, in what has become a hallmark of this administration to take a sales cut of a private company’s revenues.

The H200 is Nvidia’s second-most powerful AI processor. It’s roughly six times more capable than the H20 chips previously available to buyers in China.

These aren’t consumer gadgets powering the latest cat meme generator or helping you with the weekly pub quiz. They’re the computational engines behind advanced AI systems that increasingly drive autonomous weapons. This includes drone navigation systems, automatic gun emplacements and targeting algorithms in modern warfare.

Think less the futuristic world of the Terminator movies, more the very real AI-powered targeting systems already being deployed, including in Ukraine and Gaza.

At the end of a year that has seen the US and China locked in a bitter trade war in which Trump lifted tariffs on China as high as 145% at one point, the decision to allow these sensitive exports is stunning.

This policy reversal fundamentally challenges how export controls work. It also raises urgent questions for US allies such as Australia, caught between economic dependence on China and deepening defence alignment with an increasingly unpredictable United States.

How we got here

Having access to advanced semiconductor chips is crucial in the global race toward advanced artificial intelligence. In October 2022, the Biden administration put strict semiconductor export controls in place. These rules targeted advanced AI chips and chip-making equipment destined for China.

This was dubbed the “small yard, high fence” approach. The aim was to restrict (build a “high fence” around) a narrow range of sensitive technologies, while still allowing broader trade with China.

The Biden administration placed 140 Chinese entities on export blacklists. It also restricted 24 types of manufacturing equipment and banned US engineers from supporting advanced Chinese chip facilities.

These measures had real impact. Between 2022 and 2024, Chinese AI companies struggled to access needed computing power, forcing them to innovate with older hardware.

A different strategy

Trump’s approach is fundamentally different. In July, his administration allowed Nvidia to sell H20 chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenues. This was widely seen as a concession to China linked to negotiations over US access to rare earth minerals.

Trump’s latest move to approve the far more powerful H200 chips for export to China reflects his abandoning the rulebook on trade.

Strategic security decisions are being transformed into transactional “deals” where everything has a price.

AI warfare is already here

AI chips now power targeting systems, guide munitions and make split-second decisions on battlefields worldwide.

Ukraine’s forces use AI-equipped drones that autonomously navigate the final approach to targets, even in heavily jammed environments, reportedly improving strike accuracy from 30–50% to around 80%.

According to a Guardian report, Israel’s “Lavender” AI system identified 37,000 potential Hamas-linked targets, accelerating airstrikes but reportedly contributing to significant civilian casualties.

China’s People’s Liberation Army is reportedly deploying AI for drone swarm coordination, autonomous target recognition, and real-time battlefield decision-making.

The Pentagon’s Project Maven synthesises satellite and sensor data to suggest targets that US forces may subsequently destroy.

This isn’t science fiction; it is today’s battlefield reality.

A new kind of laundering

Modern semiconductors are “dual-use” technologies. The same chips training AI chatbots can guide cruise missiles. The same microcontrollers regulating washing machines can navigate attack drones.

British researchers have found a significant number of foreign components in Russian drones used in Ukraine have come from the US and Europe.

Some were literally harvested from household appliances. Russian procurement networks reportedly bought chips intended for repairing washing machines, erased the manufacturer’s name with acetone and inserted them into kamikaze drones.

These components travelled through third countries such as India and Kazakhstan before finding their way to Russian manufacturers.

You can’t ban washing machines without crippling consumer economies. But washing machines contain microcontrollers perfect for military drones. Export controls can become an elaborate game of whack-a-mole, where each restriction spawns new workarounds.

Australia’s dilemma

As a consequence of joining the AUKUS security partnership, Australia has restructured its export control regime to align with US priorities.

But Australia is in something of a bind. China accounts for about 30% of Australia’s total merchandise trade. Meanwhile, the US increasingly demands policy alignment as the price for accessing its defence technology.

What does US relaxation of export controls on advanced AI chips mean for Australia? Are we obligated to follow? Australia’s alignment with AUKUS was grounded on partners sharing similar views about threats, and adopting a consistent response.

However, the US’ recently released National Security Strategy identifies migration to Europe as a bigger “civilisational” threat than Russia’s military threat. Clearly, Australians see this very differently.

When security becomes a bargaining chip

Export controls work when they’re consistent, predictable, and clearly tied to national security. They fail when they become bargaining chips or revenue generators.

Trump’s H200 deal transforms the “high fence” around sensitive technologies into a turnstile for the right price.

There are pressing questions for Australia. Do US-aligned export controls serve Australian interests? Or are we outsourcing sovereignty to a partner whose decisions are increasingly arbitrary and transactional?

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Peter Draper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. With Nvidia’s second-best AI chips headed for China, the US shifts priorities from security to trade – https://theconversation.com/with-nvidias-second-best-ai-chips-headed-for-china-the-us-shifts-priorities-from-security-to-trade-271831

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has revised its long-standing guidance about vaccines and autism.

The guidance once stated clearly and correctly that the evidence shows no link between vaccines and the development of autism.

Now it claims “studies supporting a link [between vaccines and autism] have been ignored by health authorities”. It also says:

The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr directed the CDC to make these changes, despite promising at his confirmation not to alter the CDC’s vaccine advice.

With this change in wording on the website the CDC has been dragged to a new low. The CDC once stood as a global benchmark of scientific integrity. Sadly, it now risks becoming a megaphone for misinformation and a tool for those whose goal is to undermine science.

Let’s look at the updated CDC statement about vaccines and autism, and how this is at odds with how science works.

Science can’t prove universal negatives

Saying “studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism” is in direct conflict with how science works.

Using science, we can demonstrate that two things are linked by showing consistent, reproducible associations that stand up across multiple study designs. We can also test a hypothesis repeatedly and from many angles.

Therefore, for example, when high-quality studies using different methods, populations and measurements, all fail to find a link between vaccines and autism, the rational conclusion is there is no causal connection.

But we cannot prove the universal absence of a link.

If we were to accept this notion, someone could always claim they aren’t convinced by the current evidence because maybe the next study will find something. Using this same logic, it’s impossible to rule out the Earth is flat or that fairies exist.

It’s wrong to reverse the burden of proof

Another dangerous premise in the CDC’s new framing on vaccines and autism is it reverses the burden of proof.

In science, the person making a claim, especially one that argues against the available consensus, must provide the evidence for it.

The rhetorical manoeuvre on the CDC website suggesting proof is required to show the absence of a link, however, flips this principle on its head. It suggests it’s reasonable to expect scientists to defend against an infinite list of hypothetical possibilities.

But as US astronomer Carl Sagan famously put it, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. In science, if you want to assert something that contradicts the scientific consensus, the burden is on you to produce evidence strong enough to justify overturning what we already know.

The more implausible a claim is, the higher the bar in providing high quality, reproducible and methodologically sound research to support it.

By asking the CDC to alter its website guidance, RFK Jr wants you to accept the opposite: that he or anyone can make any claim and it’s the responsibility of everyone else to disprove these claims.

It’s also unclear what evidence would change RFK Jr’s mind on vaccines and autism. This leaves the door open for him to claim any amount of evidence that doesn’t support his preferred narrative is insufficient.

But what about the study that claimed to be proof?

Speculation about a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism began with a fraudulent and now-retracted 1998 Lancet paper by the discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield.

Even if you accepted everything in Wakefield’s paper as true (it wasn’t) and assumed he was an honest researcher (he wasn’t), you would still be left with nothing more than a case series of 12 children. This study design is incapable of establishing a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Subsequent investigations also uncovered a long list of damning findings about Wakefield, including:

1) He hid major financial conflicts of interest

Wakefield was paid large sums by lawyers preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers, money he failed to disclose. He was contracted to find evidence supporting a link between MMR and autism.

At the same time, he had filed patents for a single-dose measles vaccine and a diagnostic test that stood to profit if public fear about MMR increased.

2) He committed serious ethical violations

Wakefield falsely claimed the study had ethics approval. It did not. Children with developmental conditions were subjected to invasive procedures, including colonoscopies and lumbar punctures, without valid clinical justification or proper oversight.

3) He misrepresented how the children were recruited

The paper claimed the children were consecutively referred, implying an unbiased clinical sample. In reality, several were recruited through anti-vaccine groups or families involved in the lawsuit funding Wakefield, meaning the sample was deliberately cherry-picked to support his predetermined hypothesis.

4) He altered and falsified data

Comparisons between medical records and the published paper revealed extensive falsification:

• symptoms that began before vaccination were rewritten as occurring after MMR
• gastrointestinal findings were exaggerated or invented
• diagnoses were manipulated to fit his fabricated “autistic enterocolitis” syndrome
• normal clinical results were presented as abnormal.

The tragedy in all this is that a fraudulent study that never should have seen the light of day continues, even now, to erode confidence in life-saving vaccines. This has led to reduced vaccination rates, the resurgence of preventable childhood illnesses, and unnecessary deaths.

It has also inflicted immeasurable harm on autistic people and their families by fuelling stigma and misinformation.

Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The United States CDC has abandoned science in its new advice about vaccines and autism – https://theconversation.com/the-united-states-cdc-has-abandoned-science-in-its-new-advice-about-vaccines-and-autism-271493