Our polar regions have hit the headlines again as we come to the end of summer here in the northern hemisphere, a summer of extreme heat on land and in the ocean, with fires, landslides and floods. As well as extreme heat impacts in Arctic regions, a study published in Nature on August 20 found that the ice-covered continent of Antarctica and the surrounding Southern Ocean are experiencing abrupt and alarming changes:
“Sea ice is shrinking rapidly, the floating glaciers known as ice shelves are melting faster, the ice sheets carpeting the continent are approaching tipping points and vital ocean currents show signs of slowing down”, the scientists write.
Human-caused climate change worsens with every little bit of additional warming, but some impacts can develop abruptly, the researchers explain. They say the potential for such abrupt changes in the Antarctic is not nearly as well understood as that of the Arctic, but that “evidence is emerging for rapid, interacting and sometimes self-perpetuating changes in the Antarctic environment”.
Although climate impacts on the Antarctic sea-ice have only become clear in the last few years, its extent has already decreased to far below its natural variability of past centuries, the scientists find. In some respects, they go on, Antarctic ice loss is “more abrupt, non-linear and potentially irreversible than Arctic sea-ice loss”. The loss of sea ice means more dark-coloured areas of water, which store heat from the sun, whereas the reflecting white colour of ice reflects it back into the atmosphere.With the decline of sea ice, this key cooling mechanism is reduced.
Another impact the researchers mention is a “marked slowdown in Antarctic Overturning Circulation”. They say this is expected to intensify this century and may be faster than the anticipated slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which has been more widely discussed.
These currents play a major role in influencing the climate across the globe.
The research shows the abrupt changes in the Antarctic are already underway – and likely to intensify significantly in the future. That is bad news not only for the penguins and other wildlife who inhabit the “Frozen South”:
“The changes will reach much further. What’s happening in Antarctica right now will affect the world for generations to come, from rising sea levels to extreme changes in the climate system”, the authors write.
Separate findings published in Nature Communications confirm that the interior of East Antarctica is warming faster than its coastal areas. East Antarctica contains most of the world’s glacial ice. The 30-year study, led by Naoyuki Kurita of Japan’s Nagoya University, has traced this warming to increased warm air flow triggered by temperature changes in the Southern Indian Ocean. The authors say this newly identified warming mechanism indicates that current predictions and models may underestimate the rate of future Antarctic ice loss.
There have been other worrying research results published recently relating to the Antarctic, including danger from strong tides and snow algae:
The Australian government climate service has just published a technical report on Antarctica and Climate Change for the country’s first National Climate Risk Assessment. “The fact that 1.5 million Australians may be impacted by rising seas and coastal hazards by 2050 is shocking, even for this sea level scientist,” comments Co-author Professor Matt King, Director of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science.
So where do we go from here? Even with low emission pathways, unstoppable ice loss in Antarctica could still happen, say the authors of the report on abrupt Antarctic climate change. Professor Nerilie Abrams of the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, one of the lead authors, warns that: “The tipping point for unstoppable ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be exceeded even under best-case CO2 emission reduction pathways, potentially initiating global tipping cascades.”
Stabilizing Earth’s climate with minimal overshoot of 1.5 °C will be imperative alongside global adaptation measures to minimise and prepare for the far-reaching impacts of Antarctic and Southern Ocean abrupt changes, the researchers conclude.
You can’t get much clearer than that. Or is there another option?
Can geoengineering save the planet’s ice?
As the abrupt and alarming nature of Antarctic climate change becomes increasingly clear, it’s no wonder there are people (and companies on the hunt for lucrative business ideas) searching for miraculous technological solutions to solve the problem and protect the polar ice. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if we could re-engineer our world by spraying something or creating artificial barriers to keep the ice and the ocean cool? How about releasing sunlight-reflecting particles such as sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to reduce the sun’s warming effect? We could build sea curtains or walls anchored to the seabed to prevent warm water from reaching and melting ice shelves, or pump seawater onto sea ice to artificially thicken it? Could scattering glass microbeads onto sea ice boost its reflectivity? Or how about pumping water away from underneath glaciers to slow the flow of an ice sheet? Another option being tested is adding nutrients such as iron to polar oceans to stimulate blooms of phytoplankton – microscopic creatures that draw carbon into the deep ocean when they die.
Are these the measures we should be taking now, with climate impacts at the poles posing such an existential threat? 40 scientists working on polar issues have scrutinized five of the most developed geoengineering proposals currently being considered for use in the Antarctic and the Arctic and published their assessment in the journal Frontiers in Science on 9 September 2025. Their verdict is clear – although it might not be the one we would all really like to hear:
The polar scientists have come out in force to warn us that bead curtains, spraying particles and the other techniques mentioned are not going to save our frozen areas and so protect the planet from the devastating effects of overheating. On the contrary:
“Well-publicised geoengineering ideas are highly unlikely to help the polar regions and could harm ecosystems, communities, international relations, and our chances of reaching net zero by 2050”, they conclude.
The scientists assessed each polar geoengineering idea based on six criteria, summed up by NewScientist: will it work, can it be done at the scale required in a reasonable time, is it affordable, will countries agree to it and be able to maintain that agreement for many decades, what are the environmental risks and will it raise false hopes? The research also looked at how each proposal might appeal to those with an interest in avoiding emissions cuts.
“These ideas are often well intentioned, but they are flawed”, said lead author Professor Martin Siegert from the University of Exeter in the UK : “As a community, climate scientists and engineers are doing all we can to reduce the harms of the climate crisis – but deploying any of these five polar projects is likely to work against the polar regions and planet.”
The authors note that the polar regions are some of the world’s harshest environments to work in, and even simple logistics are challenging to deploy. They stress that the scale of polar geoengineering would require a human presence in the polar regions unlike anything we have considered to date, and say that many of the ideas do not consider these challenges. Dr Rob Larter,a marine geophysicist at British Antarctic Survey and an author on the review, gives an example:
“Installation of sea curtains in the Amundsen Sea would require a huge installation effort in an area with some of the harshest weather and sea ice conditions in the polar oceans, with all materials needing to be transported on icebreakers on a journey that takes more than a week from the nearest port. Even icebreakers can only operate in the area for about four months of the year, and sometimes even the most capable ships are unable to reach locations where valuable scientific equipment has been deployed by previous expeditions. Many more icebreakers would be needed than are presently available, and the cost of building new ones would be several hundred million pounds each and take many years.”
The scientists found that none of the ideas had been “robustly tested” in the real world. No field experiments were found to exist for sea curtains or sea ice reflection. Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere (SAI) had only been tested with computer modelling,they found. Ocean fertilisation experiments were inconclusive, and glacier water removal had not been demonstrated beyond limited drilling.
Negative consequences
All five ideas were found to risk intrinsic environmental damage, with sea ice management carrying particular ecological risks. Glass beads could darken the ice, and water pumps would require vast infrastructure. The authors also found that “the risks of SAI include ozone depletion and global climate pattern change; sea curtains risk disrupting habitats, feeding grounds and the migration routes of marine animals including whales, seals and seabirds; glacier water removal risks contaminating subglacial environments with fuels; and ocean fertilisation carries uncertainty as to which organisms will flourish or decline, as well as the potential for triggering shifts in natural ocean chemical cycling.”
They caution that each proposal would require extensive political negotiation and the creation of new governance structures and infrastructure.The authors conclude that, even if the proposals offered some benefit, none can be deployed at sufficient scale, fast enough, to tackle the climate crisis within the limited time available.
Limited resources to fight cause, not symptoms
The review finds that the five polar geoengineering proposals are likely to cost billions to set-up and maintain. Much of this funding – and research resources – could alternatively be used to expand tried- and-tested climate measures right now, says lead author Siegert:
“Mid-century is approaching, but our time, money, and expertise is split between evidence-backed net zero efforts and speculative geoengineering projects. We’re hopeful that we can eliminate emissions by 2050, as long as we combine our efforts towards reaching zero emissions.”
The authors acknowledge the importance of explorative research. Co-author Dr. Heide Sevestre from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Secretariat says:
“While research can help clarify the potential benefits and pitfalls of geoengineering, it’s crucial not to substitute immediate, evidence-based climate action for as-yet unproven methods. Crucially, these approaches should not distract from the urgent priority of reducing emissions and investing in proven mitigation strategies (…) If we instead combine our limited resources towards treating the cause instead of the symptoms, we have a fair shot at reaching net zero and restoring our climate’s health.”
No carte blanche for business as usual
It would be very attractive to believe things are not as bad after all, we have more time, and there are technological options which would work fast enough to avert the worst. The geoengineering proposals work well for companies seeking to extend their own fossil-fuel related profit-making activities. They are also appealing to some politicians looking for excuses to avoid making unpopular decisions during their time in office, although these could secure the long-term future of their constituents.
“One of the strangest aspects of the politics of geoengineering is the way in which certain politicians seem intent on ignoring scientific consensus in favor of their own ideological beliefs”, reads an analysis by the Open Association of Research Society. “This has led to a situation where facts are often disregarded in favor of political expediency. Additionally, the power dynamics at play in these debates can be deeply troubling, with vested interests and corporate influence often shaping the direction of research and policy decisions.”
A new study looking at UK politicians in particular from 2018 to 2023 finds that language is increasingly being used that justifies putting off the transition away from fossil fuels:
“By framing urgent action as “extreme” and steady-as-she-goes policies as “pragmatic”, leaders across the political spectrum are protecting the fossil-fuel status quo at the very moment scientists warn we need rapid, transformative change”, the researchers find.
Targets and reality
The U.N. has asked countries to bring updated national climate plans to its General Assembly this week, seeking to revive global momentum to tackle climate change ahead of November’s UN climate conference COP30 in Brazil. Alas, the USA – the world’s second largest emitter and its largest economy – is withdrawing from the key Paris Agreement, where countries pledged 10 years ago to limit global warming to a maximum of 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. US emissions are now projected to fall much more slowly than previously calculated. The move might also reduce the motivation of other countries, not least in the Global South, to submit ambitious climate targets to the UN.
Even the EU, which sees itself as a climate champion, has failed to agree on new climate targets for 2040 and 2035, and will only send a “statement of intent” to the UN, outlining what climate goal the EU eventually hopes to approve. Countries – including Germany, France and Poland – demanded government leaders first discuss the 2040 goal at a summit in October, delaying talks on both targets.
In the run-up to the Brazil meeting, countries are dragging their heels. As experts from the think-tank Chatham House describe it, “the conference will inevitably serve as moment to take stock of how global climate efforts are proceeding in a highly challenging geopolitical context.” That stocktake will be sobering, to put it mildly.
Every fraction of a degree of global warming increases the likelihood and intensity of things we don’t want to happen. We need to put all available resources into reaching net zero asap. There is no quick and easy fix to get us off the hook.
Let’s not waste time and resources on controversial geoengineering efforts.
Promoting such ideas that cannot work distracts attention from the key issue, concludes lead author of the geoengineering review Martin Siegert:
“It becomes something that is working against what we need to do, which is to decarbonise.”
There is some good news, says Siegert:
“We have existing goals that we know will work. Global heating will likely stabilize within 20 years of us reaching net zero. Temperatures would stop climbing, offering substantial benefits for the polar regions, the planet, and all lifeforms.”
And we can’t afford to limit our hopes and efforts to the annual UN COP extravaganza. Let’s put the resources, the amazing know-how we have into technologies that will give us renewable energy for all and clean up the planet.
In an interview for Chatham House, the CEO of COP30, Ana Toni, commented that the COPs only constitute a ‘moment in the year.’ I’ll take my closing sentiment from her. She said “what matters most is what governments, businesses and citizens do during the rest of the time.”
And although it sometimes feels like those of us keen to work in the interests of climate protection are in the minority – there are more of us than you think.
Great Job iqiceblog & the Team @ The Ice Blog Source link for sharing this story.
