Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Steve Rintoul, CSIRO Fellow, CSIRO

Sometimes, we get lucky in science. In this case, an oceanographic float we deployed to do one job ended up drifting away and doing something else entirely.

Equipped with temperature and salinity sensors, our Argo ocean float was supposed to be surveying the ocean around the Totten Glacier, in eastern Antarctica. To our initial disappointment, it rapidly drifted away from this region. But it soon reappeared further west, near ice shelves where no ocean measurements had ever been made.

Drifting in remote and wild seas for two-and-a-half years, the float spent about nine months beneath the massive Denman and Shackleton ice shelves. It survived to send back new data from parts of the ocean that are usually difficult to sample.

Measurements of the ocean beneath ice shelves are crucial to determine how much, and how quickly, Antarctica will contribute to sea-level rise.

What are Argo ocean floats?

Argo floats are free-floating robotic oceanographic instruments. As they drift, they rise and fall through the ocean to depths of up to 2 kilometres, collecting profiles of temperature and salinity. Every ten days or so they rise to the surface to transmit data to satellites.

These floats have become a mainstay of our global ocean observing system. Given that 90% of the extra heat stored by the planet over the past 50 years is found in the ocean, these measurements provide the best thermometer we have to track Earth’s warming.

Little buoy lost

We deployed the float to measure how much ocean heat was reaching the rapidly changing Totten Glacier, which holds a volume of ice equivalent to 3.5 metres of global sea-level rise. Our previous work had shown enough warm water was reaching the base of the ice shelf to drive the rapid melting.

To our disappointment, the float soon drifted away from Totten. But it reappeared near another ice shelf also currently losing ice mass and potentially at risk of melting further: the Denman Glacier. This holds ice equivalent to 1.5m of global sea-level rise.

The configuration of the Denman Glacier means it could be potentially unstable. But its vulnerability was difficult to assess because few ocean measurements had been made. The data from the float showed that, like Totten Glacier, warm water could reach the cavity beneath the Denman ice shelf.

Our float then disappeared under ice and we feared the worst. But nine months later it surfaced again, having spent that time drifting in the freezing ocean beneath the Denman and Shackleton ice shelves. And it had collected data from places never measured before.

Why measure under ice?

As glaciers flow from the Antarctic continent to the sea, they start to float and form ice shelves. These shelves act like buttresses, resisting the flow of ice from Antarctica to the ocean. But if the giant ice shelves weaken or collapse, more grounded ice flows into the ocean. This causes sea level to rise.

What controls the fate of the Antarctic ice sheet – and therefore the rate of sea-level rise – is how much ocean heat reaches the base of the floating ice shelves. But the processes that cause melting in ice-shelf cavities are very challenging to observe.

Ice shelves can be hundreds or thousands of metres thick. We can drill a hole through the ice and lower oceanographic sensors. But this is expensive and rarely done, so few measurements have been made in ice-shelf cavities.

What the float found

During its nine-month drift beneath the ice shelves, the float collected profiles of temperature and salinity from the seafloor to the base of the shelf every five days. This is the first line of oceanographic measurements beneath an ice shelf in East Antarctica.

There was only one problem: because the float was unable to surface and communicate with the satellite for a GPS fix, we didn’t know where the measurements were made. However, it returned data that provided an important clue. Each time it bumped its head on the ice, we got a measurement of the depth of the ice shelf base. We could compare the float data to satellite measurements to work out the likely path of the float beneath the ice.

These measurements showed the Shackleton ice shelf (the most northerly in East Antarctica) is, for now, not exposed to warm water capable of melting it from below, and therefore less vulnerable.

However, the Denman Glacier is exposed to warm water flowing in beneath the ice shelf and causing the ice to melt. The float showed the Denman is delicately poised: a small increase in the thickness of the layer of warm water would cause even greater melting.

What does this mean?

These new observations confirm the two most significant glaciers (Denman and Totten) draining ice from this part of East Antarctica are both vulnerable to melt caused by warm water reaching the base of the ice shelves.

Between them, these two glaciers hold a huge volume of ice, equivalent to five metres of global sea level rise. The West Antarctic ice sheet is at greater risk of imminent melting, but East Antarctica holds a much larger volume of ice. This means the loss of ice from East Antarctica is crucial to estimating sea level rise.

Both the Denman and Totten glaciers are stabilised in their present position by the slope of the bedrock on which they sit. But if the ice retreated further, they would be in an unstable configuration where further melt was irreversible. Once this process of unstable retreat begins, we are committed. It may take centuries for the full sea-level rise to be realised, but there’s no going back.

In the future, we need an array of floats spanning the entire Antarctic continental shelf to transform our understanding of how ice shelves react to changes in the ocean. This would give us greater certainty in estimating future sea-level rise.

Steve Rintoul receives funding from the Australian Government as part of the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative, through
the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership.

Esmee van Wijk receives funding from the Australian Government as part of the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative, through the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership.

Laura Herraiz Borreguero receives funding from the Australian Government as part of the Antarctic Science collaboration initiative, through the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership.

Madelaine Gamble Rosevear receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. What our missing ocean float revealed about Antarctica’s melting glaciers – https://theconversation.com/what-our-missing-ocean-float-revealed-about-antarcticas-melting-glaciers-271201

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

Mrs. Wilberforce (Katie Johnson) lives alone in a rickety Victorian house near London’s King’s Cross railway station. She rents a room to Professor Marcus (Alec Guinness), who claims to be a musician, and asks to use the room for practice sessions with his string quintet.

But wait. Professor Marcus and his four associates are in fact plotting an armed robbery and plan to use Mrs. Wilberforce in their dastardly scheme.

What a pleasure it is to revisit The Ladykillers (1955) – a jet-black, peculiarly subversive marriage of genteel English manners and anarchic criminality.

With its cast of eccentrics, dry wit and distinctively British whimsy, this film from London-based Ealing Studios perfectly zig-zags between kind-hearted and creepy. And 70 years on, it is fondly remembered as the closing flourish of the golden age of Ealing comedies.

A comic institution

Ealing Studios, based in the west London suburb of the same name, was founded in 1902, making it the world’s oldest continuously running film studio.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, under the leadership of Michael Balcon, the studio became known for producing a series of comedies that reflected British values, class tensions and post-war anxieties, often in a light-hearted or ironic way.

Films such as Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), Passport to Pimlico (1949) and The Lavender Hill Mob (1951) portrayed a particular brand of British humour: ironic, restrained and, above all, socially observant.

These films gently poked fun at the British class system while celebrating quirky individuals and tight-knit neighbourhoods. As Balcon himself later said:

We made films at Ealing that were good, bad and indifferent, but that were indisputably British. They were rooted in the soil of the country.

Earlier successes depicted criminal protagonists whose schemes were both ingenious and only slightly morally dubious. The Ladykillers took this tradition to its logical extreme: the criminals were no longer charming anti-heroes, but grotesque figures, hapless in their execution of the robbery.

The film’s delicious central irony, in keeping with the Ealing ethos, is that the one person capable of undoing the criminal plot is the least likely: a frail old woman with a kettle and a parrot.

Making a masterpiece

The Ladykillers was written by William Rose, who allegedly dreamt the plot and awoke to write it down. This dream-like provenance makes its way into the film.

Scottish-American director Alexander Mackendrick, who had previously worked for Ealing on Whisky Galore! (1949) and The Man in the White Suit (1951), gave the film its distinctive atmosphere of part-grotesque fairy tale and part-suburban farce. As Mackendrick once remarked

the characters are all caricatures, fable figures; none of them is real for a moment.

Mrs. Wilberforce’s house, where most of the action is set, was constructed on an Ealing backlot – a convincing reminder of the sooty urban geography of post-war London.

Prague-born cinematographer Otto Heller used shadow and deep contrast to lend a macabre quality to a comedy that often flirts with horror. A perfect example is when Mrs. Wilberforce opens the door to the professor for the first time.

Alec Guinness’s performance is a revelation. His waxen features, exaggerated false teeth and vulture-like gestures are a far cry from Obi-Wan Kenobi and George Smiley. He turns Professor Marcus into a grotesque parody of a criminal mastermind.

Guinness is abetted by stalwarts such as Herbert Lom and Danny Green. And Peter Sellers gives a nervy performance as Harry, in a role that would mark the beginning of his rise to Hollywood stardom.

A profoundly moral tale

Professor Marcus and his band of misfits mock the pretensions of criminal sophistication, contrasting them with the quiet rectitude of an old woman who represents a vanishing Britain.

They brilliantly capture the contradictions of 1950s London: the post-war optimism laced with paranoia, social deference mingled with subversion, and a genteel facade barely concealing the chaos beneath. It’s little wonder some critics see this Ealing output as deeply political.

Without spoiling the plot, The Ladykillers concludes with a restorative, comic sense of moral order. The criminal enterprise collapses, not due to law enforcement or clever detection, but because of the gang’s own ineptitude and Mrs. Wilberforce’s stubborn innocence and moral clarity.

A beloved film, then and now

The Ladykillers was a critical and commercial smash in the United Kingdom. Critic Penelope Houston applauded its “splendid, savage absurdity”. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay and won Katie Johnson a BAFTA for Best British Actress, aged 77.

The film was remade by the Coen Brothers in 2004, this time with Tom Hanks as a Southern gentleman crook. But this version was widely panned, illustrating just how specific the tone of the original was.

Its reputation has only grown since December 1955, with the British Film Institute ranking it among the best British films of the 20th century.

At one point in the film, Professor Marcus cries out

We’ll never be able to kill her. She’ll always be with us, for ever and ever and ever, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Just like the stubborn, indomitable spirit of Mrs. Wilberforce, The Ladykillers isn’t going anywhere.

Ben McCann 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 Ladykillers at 70: how one film turned British whimsy into a darkly comic masterpiece – https://theconversation.com/the-ladykillers-at-70-how-one-film-turned-british-whimsy-into-a-darkly-comic-masterpiece-250781

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sarah Sasson, Scientia Senior Lecturer in Medicine (Immunology), UNSW Sydney

The terms tumour and cancer can refer to different types of lumps and bumps. But the terms are often confused and misused – by the general public and even health professionals.

For instance, doctors can use euphemisms such as tumour, mass, lesion or spot when they really mean cancer.

So what’s the difference between a tumour and cancer? And why is it important to use the right terms?

What’s a tumour?

The Oxford dictionary defines a tumour as “any abnormal swelling in or on a part of the body”. They develop in nearly any part, including fat, muscle, bone, nerves and glands.

But not all tumours are cancer, and not all cancers are tumours.

Tumours can be “benign” (not cancer) or “malignant” (cancer).

Some benign tumours are harmless and don’t need treatment. These include lipomas (deposits of fat cells under the skin) or haemangiomas (an overgrowth of blood vessels often looking like reddish-purple birthmarks).

Other benign tumours can cause problems due to their location. These include uterine fibroids, which can cause heavy menstrual bleeding, and benign pituitary adenomas, which can over-produce hormones. Even though these tumours are not cancer, they can be dangerous and doctors sometimes advise surgery to remove them.

What’s cancer?

Cancer develops when normal cells acquire genetic changes, called mutations, that allow them to escape the body’s normal “checks and balances”.

Several hallmarks of cancer were defined more than 25 years ago and include uncontrolled growth and avoiding immune destruction.

Importantly, cancer cells can invade surrounding structures (known as invasion) and spread to other sites (metastasis). These are the key features that distinguish malignant tumours (cancer) from benign ones (not cancer).

Cancers in solid organs – such as the breast, skin or lung – are sometimes called malignant tumours because they form masses. But not all cancers form masses. Blood cancers, such as leukaemia, usually do not.

---

Read more:
How does cancer spread to other parts of the body?

---

How are they detected?

Both tumours and cancers can cause lumps and bumps, either detected by the patient (Doc, what’s this lump?) or during investigation for a symptom (Doc, I can’t swallow).

Symptoms differ depending on where the tumour (both benign and malignant) is and what types of cells it is made of. For example, tumours in the gastrointestinal tract (oesophagus, stomach, bowel) can cause symptoms because the mass starts to obstruct the digestive tract.

Imaging such as ultrasound, CT or MRI might be needed to investigate further. The tissue may also be sampled (via a needle or surgery) then a pathologist can look at the sample under the microscope to determine the cell type to determine whether it’s benign or malignant.

How are they managed?

Management can be similar, such as cutting out a benign meningioma (brain tumour) or a malignant basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer).

Management can also be very different. Malignant tumours (cancer) have the potential to spread, and at advanced stages are associated with increased risk of death. So managing cancer is often more time-sensitive and complex.

Treatment for some malignant tumours involves a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or systemic treatment, such as chemotherapy, which affects the whole body.

Why it’s important to get the words right

Misusing the words cancer and tumour can be confusing and misleading. This may be because the word “cancer” carries a stigma of sickness and death, even though many cancers have a good outlook.

When talking to patients, it’s important for doctors to “get it right”. Less than half of patients understand that a doctor means cancer if they use euphemisms such as tumour, mass, lesion or spot.

In fact, any type of ambiguous language doctors use when communicating with patients about cancer can increase confusion.

In a nutshell

The terms tumour and cancer are not interchangeable. Solid cancers are tumours and malignant tumours are cancers.

But not all tumours are malignant, and not all cancers are solid.

Megan Barnet receives funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and government-funded grants including the NHMRC.

Sarah Sasson 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. What’s the difference between a tumour and cancer? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-tumour-and-cancer-266363

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

When people think of gym goers using steroids, the picture that comes to mind is often of a man pumping iron, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or modern day shirtless masculinity influencers like “the Liver King”.

But the image is changing. Women now represent a growing share of people who use steroids. And so harm minimisation efforts, currently targeted at men, will need to change too.

It’s not just men

Research shows women are increasingly represented among steroid-using communities, even though precise long-term trend data are limited.

A 2024 systematic review of international studies found about 4% of adult women had used anabolic steroids at least once, up from 1.6% in 2014.

Among women bodybuilders, nearly 17% – around one in six – report using steroids, and rates among women in strength sports or recreational lifting communities are also markedly higher than in the general woman population.

This emerging evidence suggests the gender profile of steroid use is shifting, even if precise historical rates are not available to confirm the exact scale of the increase.

While we don’t have robust national statistics for Australia, data show the weight of steroids seized nationally increased 1,372% between 2011-12 and 2020-21 (from 33.7 kilograms to 496.8kg).

This trend almost certainly mirrors what’s happening overseas: continued, escalating growth of the bodybuilding and fitness communities, including among women in amateur strength sports.

The boom in women’s strength training and weightlifting since 2021 will benefit the physical and mental health of most who partake in it.

But the simultaneous increase in steroid use may be cause for concern without effective harm reduction via education, health promotion and health services engagement.

3 reasons more women are using them

The reasons are complex but three stand out.

First, the rise of strength sports. Women’s participation in powerlifting, weightlifting and bodybuilding has grown rapidly in Australia since the early 2020s.

These sports have opened up new spaces for women to feel strong, confident and physically capable. But they also expose women to online communities where performance-enhancing drugs are normalised.

---

Read more:
Strongman used to be seen as a super-human novelty sport. Now more women and novices are turning to it

---

Second, the influence of social media. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube are filled with “fitfluencers” showcasing dramatic transformations. Many of these women are seeking the “perfect body”.

Some openly promote steroid cycles and other chemical shortcuts. Women who follow these influencers – often for training or nutrition advice – can end up in online spaces where performance-enhancing drugs are normal.

---

Read more:
Get big or die trying: social media is driving men’s use of steroids. Here’s how to mitigate the risks

---

Third, many women are being encouraged or “brought into” performance-enhancing drugs use by others.

Qualitative research from Australia and Scandinavia shows women often start using steroids through male friends, partners or coaches, who may position these drugs as necessary for progress or competition.

Of course, taking any performance- or image-enhancing drug is not without risks.

The dangers are real

While steroids carry risks for everyone, women may face unique and irreversible side effects.

These include:

• facial and body hair growth
• deepening of the voice
• menstrual changes or infertility
• breast tissue reduction
• acne and hair loss
• clitoral enlargement
• severe mood changes, including anxiety and irritability, among other symptoms.

And beyond these risks, emerging Australian research shows another danger: many underground steroid products contain toxic contaminants such as lead, arsenic and cadmium – substances linked to cancer, organ damage and cardiovascular disease.

The biggest long-term risks are the ones people rarely talk about: heart disease, stroke, liver damage and mental health problems.

Interviews with women who use steroids show many are less informed than men about these dangers, often because the research has historically focused on male use.

There is also the issue of stigma. Women report being judged more harshly than men when seeking medical help and some avoid health services entirely.

That leaves them more vulnerable to complications.

How do we turn this trend around?

Policing steroid use in isolation won’t work. Nor will repeating the old message that women should simply “just say no.”

The evidence suggests three promising approaches.

1. Better health promotion education that actually speaks to women. Most steroid information online is written for men, by men. Health agencies need to produce clear, accessible, women’s resources that explain risks honestly and without shame.

2. Meeting women where they are. Social media is where many women learn about these drugs, so it should also be where they see accurate information. This may include partnering with credible fitness influencers – especially women – who can explain risks, promote safer training practices and counter misinformation.

3. Reducing stigma in healthcare. Women who use steroids may avoid doctors because they fear judgement. Training clinicians to respond without moralising – the same way we approach other drug-related issues – would make it easier for women to seek support early.

Sonya Weith, a peer educator at Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action, provided an expert review of this article.

Samuel Cornell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Timothy Piatkowski is affiliated with Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action (Vice President & Research Lead) and The Loop Australia (Research Lead QLD),

– ref. More women are using steroids – and many don’t know the risks – https://theconversation.com/more-women-are-using-steroids-and-many-dont-know-the-risks-271183

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Steven Siems, Professor in Cloud Microphysics, Monash University

If you ever find yourself on Macquarie Island – a narrow, wind-lashed ridge halfway between Tasmania and Antarctica – the first thing you’ll notice is the wildlife. Elephant seals sprawl across dark beaches. King penguins march up mossy slopes. Albatrosses circle over vast, treeless uplands.

But look more closely and the island is changing. Slopes are becoming boggier. Iconic megaherbs such as Pleurophyllum and Stilbocarpa are retreating.

For years, scientists suspected the culprit was increasing rainfall. Our new research, published in Weather and Climate Dynamics, confirms this – and shows the story goes far beyond one remote UNESCO World Heritage site.

A major – but little observed – climate player

The Southern Ocean plays an enormous role in the global climate system.

It absorbs much of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases and a large share of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity.

Storms in the Southern Ocean also influence weather patterns across Australia, New Zealand and the globe.

Yet it is also one of the least observed places on Earth.

With almost no land masses, only a handful of weather stations, and ubiquitous cloud cover, satellites and simulations struggle to capture what is actually happening there.

That makes Macquarie Island’s climate record from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Antarctic Division exceptionally valuable, providing one of the very few long-term “ground truth” records anywhere in the Southern Ocean.

These high-quality records of the observed daily rainfall and meteorology date back more than 75 years and are commonly used to validate satellite products and numerical simulations.

Rising rainfall

Earlier work has found rainfall at Macquarie Island had risen sharply over recent decades, and ecologists documented waterlogging that harms native vegetation.

But no one has explained how the island’s weather patterns are changing, or directly compared the field observations to our best reconstructions of past weather to assess Southern Ocean climate trends.

To fill this gap, we analysed 45 years (1979–2023) of daily rainfall observations and compared them to a widely used reconstruction of earlier weather, known as the ERA5 reanalysis.

We wanted to understand the meteorology behind the increase in rainfall – that is, whether it was caused by more storms or more intense rainfall during storms. To do this we placed each day in the dataset into one of five synoptic regimes based on pressure, humidity, winds and temperature.

These regimes included low pressure systems, cold-air outbreaks and warm-air advection (the warm air that moves poleward ahead of a cold front).

Storms are producing more rain

Our analysis showed that annual rainfall on Macquarie Island has increased 28% since 1979 – around 260 millimetres per year.

The ERA5 reanalysis, in contrast, shows only an 8% increase — missing most of this change.

The storm track’s gradual move toward Antarctica is well established, and our results show how this larger change is shaping Macquarie Island’s weather today.

Crucially, we found that these changes are not causing the increase in rainfall, as one wet regime (warm air advection) was largely replacing another (low pressure).

Instead, storms now produce more rain when they occur.

Why does this matter beyond one island?

If the rainfall intensification we see at Macquarie Island reflects conditions across the Southern Ocean storm belt – as multiple lines of evidence indicate — the consequences are profound.

A wetter storm track means more fresh water entering the upper ocean. This strengthens the different layers in the oceans and reduces the amount of mixing that occurs. In turn, this alters the strength of ocean currents.

Our estimate suggests that in 2023 this additional precipitation equates to roughly 2,300 gigatonnes of additional freshwater per year across the high-latitude Southern Ocean – an order of magnitude greater than recent Antarctic meltwater contributions. And this difference continues to grow.

More rainfall will also affect the salinity of water on the ocean’s surface, which influences the movement of nutrients and carbon. As a result, this could change the productivity and chemistry of the Southern Ocean – one of the world’s most important carbon sinks – in still-uncertain ways.

This increase in rainfall requires a matching increase in evaporation, which cools the ocean, just like our bodies cool when our sweat evaporates. Over the cloudy Southern Ocean, this evaporation is the primary means of cooling the ocean.

Our analysis indicates the Southern Ocean may be cooling itself by 10–15% more than it did in 1979 – simply through the energy cost of evaporation that fuels the extra rainfall. This evaporation is spread over the broader Southern Ocean.

In effect, the Southern Ocean may be “sweating” more in response to climate change.

The next challenge

Macquarie Island is just one tiny speck of land in Earth’s stormiest ocean.

But its long-term rainfall record suggests the Southern Ocean – the engine room of global heat and carbon uptake – is changing faster and more dramatically than we thought.

The next challenge is to determine how far this signal extends across the storm track, and what it means for the climate system we all depend on.

---

The authors would like the acknowledge Andrew Prata, Yi Huang, Ariaan Purish and Peter May for their contribution to the research and this article.

Steven Siems receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Zhaoyang Kong 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. Storms in the Southern Ocean are producing more rain – and the consequences could be global – https://theconversation.com/storms-in-the-southern-ocean-are-producing-more-rain-and-the-consequences-could-be-global-270880