theSIGNAL SCIENCE
3 November 2026
"The glacier knows nothing of our deadlines, only of our emissions."
NEWSBUSINESSTECHNOLOGYWORLDSCIENCECULTUREENVIRONMENTSPORT
Science

Overshooting 1.5C Is Not a Safe Detour

A UN-backed report says melting ice makes temporary overshoot of climate targets far riskier than assumed, and that warming must fall below 1C.

Switzerland has lost a fifth of its glacier ice in just five years. Think about that for a moment. Mountains that seemed permanent are shrinking within a single school career. Now a new report asks an uncomfortable question.

What if we simply let the planet overheat for a while, then cool it down later? It sounds tidy, like borrowing money and paying it back. But 80 scientists, convened by the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative and the UN Environment Programme, say the ice does not work that way. The world has warmed by about 1.

3C since pre-industrial times. Because emissions keep rising and nature is poorly protected, some overshoot of the 1.5C Paris target is now considered unavoidable. Under current policies, however, peak temperatures could reach roughly 3C.

That would thaw nearly all near-surface permafrost and make "severe and possibly abrupt" disruption to ocean circulation likely. Sea ice, it turns out, also recovers more slowly than researchers once believed.

Photo: Sophia Simoes / Unsplash
A retreating alpine glacier shows the bare rock left behind as ice thaws year after year.
Discuss
  • Why might the idea of overshooting a climate target and later returning to it appeal to politicians and businesses?
  • The report calls safe overshoot a myth. What other myths about risk have delayed action on big global problems?
  • Glacier loss affects Nepal, Switzerland and low-lying coasts differently. Who should bear the cost of adapting to it?
Science

Could the Liver Hold Alzheimer's Secret?

Where do you look when the brain's problem might not be in the brain? Researchers at USC looked at the liver. In old rats, a drug called cinaciguat revived aging liver cells, and within two weeks amyloid beta fell by half while LDL cholesterol returned to youthful levels. The work also revealed a new way liver cells talk to each other. Humans remain untested, though.…
  • If Alzheimer's treatments keep failing in the brain, should scientists look to other organs?
∞
The cryosphere is one of the most sensitive components of the climate system, and the consequences of its loss affect the whole planet.
James Kirkham, glaciologist at the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative
Science

Trillions of Ghosts Are Crossing Your Body

Right now, countless neutrinos are passing through you. You feel nothing, and neither does the planet beneath your feet. These particles have no charge and almost no mass, so they rarely touch anything. Yet they are everywhere: about 10^89 in the universe, roughly a billion per atom. How do you catch such ghosts? Physicists buried a vast detector in Antarctic ice. Its name is IceCube, and it earned Francis Halzen a Nobel Prize.…
  • If trillions of neutrinos pass through us unnoticed, what else might science still be missing?
GLOBAL · Science
A simple blood test could reveal Alzheimer’s risk 10 years before symptoms
EUROPE · Science
Physicists created a tiny universe and watched time emerge without a clock
AFRICA · Science
Ancient ape fossil in Egypt could rewrite the story of human origins
AMERICAS · Science
Scientists use sound waves to deliver a new attack on deadly brain cancer
theSIGNAL IN THE LAB
1VOCABULARY
overshootpermafrost
thawabruptpersistent myth
water insecurityvanishing
2GRAMMAR FOCUS
Causative have/get — have something done
Use have/get + object + past participle to say that someone arranges for another person to do something for us, or that we experience something done to us (often unwanted). 'Get' is more informal than 'have', and the agent is introduced with 'by' only when it matters.
have · had · having · get · got · getting · has
  1. Swiss villages below the shrinking glaciers may soon their water supplies checked more often by engineers.
  2. Nepal its roads, bridges and homes badly damaged when the ice-and-rock avalanche struck the border region.
  3. If the world keeps warming, many coastal cities will have to new sea defences built at enormous cost.
  4. The scientists want governments to carbon removed from the air so that warming falls below 1C by 2150.
  5. Local authorities in mountain areas are their evacuation plans rewritten after the latest report.
  6. The research team at USC the old rats' liver cells tested before and after treatment with cinaciguat.
3IDIOMS
Define each idiom in your own words. Then write one in a sentence of your own.
  1. to borrow from Peter to pay Paul (cf. 'borrowing money and paying it back' – the overshoot idea)
  2. the tip of the iceberg
  3. to cross the point of no return
  4. to leave no stone unturned
  5. to be back to square one
4CRITICAL THINKING
The articles rely on striking numbers: a fifth of Swiss glacier ice lost, a 50% fall in amyloid beta, 10^89 neutrinos. How do statistics like these shape our sense of what is serious or credible? Choose one figure from the stories and discuss what extra context you would need before deciding how much weight to give it.
5CREATIVE · HEADLINES
Write a headline for the top story in each of the following styles. One line each, no explanation:
  • TABLOID NEWSPAPER
  • LUXURY MAGAZINE
  • ACTIVIST BLOG
6WRITING
Imagine you are a 12-year-old in a Swiss village who has watched the nearby glacier shrink during your school years. Write a short diary entry (about 120 words) describing what you see, how it feels, and what you would say to the adults making decisions.
7DEGREES OF EXTREMITY
Complete each ladder from mild to strong.
  • noticeable→→
  • unwelcome→→
  • slow→→
  • surprising→→
  • worrying→→
  • unlikely→→
8SPEAKING
  1. Which sounds more convincing to you: personal warnings or statistics? Why?
  2. Describe a landscape you love. How might it look in fifty years?
  3. Do experts explain complicated science well to ordinary people? Give examples.
  4. Would you support spending public money on basic research with no clear use?