The Amazon is the largest rainforest in the world, spanning more than 2 million square miles (5.2 million square kilometers) — an area 12 times the size of California. It influences global water cycles, stores years of global carbon emissions, supports 47 million people, and is home to the greatest concentration of biodiversity on Earth.

But the Amazon rainforest is also disappearing, with 17% of it already cut down or destroyed and largely replaced with agriculture. Other grave threats, such as oil drilling and illegal mining, continue to whittle it down. The next century may have outsize importance, as the forest could reach a "tipping point."

So what will the Amazon rainforest look like in 100 years?

The answer depends on a number of compounding threats, Bernardo Flores, a researcher with the EqualSea Lab at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, told Live Science.

Encroaching farmland and organized crime are a couple of the problems chipping away at the Amazon. But those work in tandem with what he considers the three main threats: climate change, which can lead to extreme weather events, "like wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons," deforestation and fire.

As the Amazon loses more of its forest, it triggers a feedback loop. "You have less rainfall; then you have less forest, [then] less rainfall, less forest," Flores explained. "That ultimately leads to "a global scale feedback involving the Amazon: More forest loss [leads to] more global warming. More global warming, more forest loss."

As forests get drier, it becomes easier for wildfires to burn more areas. Roads also degrade the forest, and "wherever you have roads, you have people doing illegal activities, illegal logging … then this leads to [more] forest fires," Flores said.

The "arc of deforestation" — a roughly 310,000-square-mile (800,000 square km) border along the Amazon considered the largest deforestation frontier in the world — offers a preview of what much of the Amazon could ultimately look like, according to Flores. The forests that remain there have higher tree mortality and more canopy gaps, and they are often "covered with lianas," or woody vines, that become an ecological problem, he said. Lianas compete with trees for light and nutrients in the soil, and significantly reduce not only a tree's chance of survival but also the overall diversity of trees in a forest. "When the whole forest is covered in lianas, you don't see the forest anymore," he added.

Invasive grasses introduced by cattle farmers will likely proliferate in the decades ahead, but "only a few parts" of the Amazon could become "a savanna, because a savanna is a native, biodiverse ecosystem," he said. Invasive grasses "exclude native species, reduce biodiversity" and would not allow native savanna grasses to replace the forest, Flores said. Instead, one possibility is a "degraded open-canopy ecosystem," where native, naturally fire-tolerant trees, combined with invasive grasses, vines and ferns, proliferate, Flores told Live Science.

Wildlife would quickly be affected as well. Aquatic species are especially vulnerable, Flores said. "When you start having these droughts that will simply last for one, two, three years," wetlands will dry out and become flammable, he explained. That could lead to "very quick extinctions in those areas."

The destruction of the Amazon rainforest would be disastrous for the Indigenous people living there, Christian Poirier, program director of Amazon Watch, an environmental and Indigenous rights advocacy group, told Live Science. "Imagine having your backyard bulldozed and your water source poisoned," he said. "You probably need to move from where you live, and that's exactly what's happening in the Amazon."

A devastated Amazon would also lead to "a more chaotic global climate system," Flores said. There could be less rainfall across parts of South America, and global warming will worsen. Earth could eventually reach a tipping point where ice sheets melt, ocean currents malfunction and the collapse of the Amazon accelerate warming all at once, pushing the planet to "cross the tipping point and transition to a much warmer climate," he said, leading to potentially irreversible consequences.

Unlike other major climate risks, such as the potential of the Greenland Ice Sheet melting and contributing to sea level rise, deforestation can in theory be reversed more easily by reforestation, said Arie Staal, an assistant professor of ecosystem resilience at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

"That gives us a knob to turn that we don't have for other possible tipping points on Earth," he told Live Science. "It is clear that we really need to stop deforestation in the Amazon. And there's hope."

Editor's note: This article was updated at 6:23 p.m. EDT on June 22 to fix the conversion of roughly 310,000 square miles to 800,000 square kilometers.

Rainforest quiz: Can you sort the largest rainforests on Earth?

Energy used to power artificial intelligence (AI) could jump to 3% of global electricity demand by 2030, guzzling as much water as the 1.3 billion people in sub-Saharan Africa consume in one year to meet their domestic water needs.

Those are the conclusions of a recent United Nations report that estimated the land use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with AI's breakneck expansion. If the data centers that underpin AI formed a country, they would rank 11th in the world for energy use due to their high infrastructure and electricity needs to train ever more complicated models and satisfy users, the report found.

By 2030, data centers could rise to sixth in the world for energy consumption, which would have a land footprint the size of Connecticut and release emissions comparable to those of the U.K. in 2025, depending on how much renewable energy is in the mix.

The findings highlight how much additional pressure AI and the infrastructure that supports it could put on the environment and the climate within the next few years. But why does AI have such a huge footprint, who is benefiting or being left out from the opportunities linked to AI's growth, and what can be done to limit the damage?

To find out more, we spoke with Kaveh Madani, lead investigator for the U.N. report; director of the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health; and the recipient of this year's Stockholm Water Prize.

Sascha Pare: What would you say is the main takeaway from the report?

Kaveh Madani: The main takeaway of this report is that although in the general discourse AI is perceived as something virtual, or digital, or up in the clouds, there is [a] massive physicality to AI and the supply chains and infrastructure that back it up. And that's one thing that this report has tried to do: to remind people that behind every prompt, every use, every interaction, there is some level of impact on the environment. This is because from the top of the supply chain, where the extraction of critical minerals happens, to the point of manufacturing the hardware, the construction of the data centers, then the operation of data centers, and then dealing with the e-waste, there are major environmental impacts. If we take all of those into account, then we realize that what's digital is not necessarily free of impact. There is always some footprint associated with it, and we have to remember that.

SP: Why does AI have such massive land and water footprints, specifically?

KM: The report outlines the carbon, water and land footprints of AI's energy use. All along the supply chain, from the extraction of critical minerals to the point of disposing and dealing with the electronic waste, we have actions and interventions that require water, require land, and are associated with carbon emissions. So, if you think about, for example, the extraction of critical minerals, we know that during the process, a lot of water is being used and a lot of water is being polluted and poisoned. We published a report in April about the water injustice implications of the critical minerals, showing exactly what is happening where we have the extraction of critical minerals.

But let's not forget that the [new] report is focused on AI's energy use, and then tries to argue that the energy production process itself requires also a lot of water and land. If you are using hydropower to provide energy to your data center, you're using a lot of land and a lot of water. This applies to all sorts of energy sources, regardless of being clean or not, or if you consider them renewable or not — they all require water and land. On top of this, of course, you need to build data centers on land, but also you need water for cooling. That's why, throughout the supply chain, throughout the life cycle of AI, we have a lot of water and land use, in addition to carbon emissions.

SP: The report is packed with jaw-dropping statistics about how big AI's environmental footprint could get by 2030. But how significant are the impacts?

KM: First of all, it is very hard to estimate exactly how much energy AI is currently using, but we know that roughly 20% of the current load of data centers can be attributed to AI. We are expecting that to be 40% within a few years. And by then, the data centers that back AI's operations are expected to have an energy demand that is about 3% of the total energy demand of the world. This is equivalent to being the sixth-most-energy-intensive country in the world. The water demand of that is also huge; the water footprint associated with that is enough to satisfy the domestic water needs of 1.3 billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.

SP: Can the environment and communities cope with the projected levels of energy and water consumption needed for AI?

KM: There would be places in the world where big decisions must be made, meaning that you have to decide if you want to continue using your water for agriculture or if you want to put it into data centers. Those would be decisions for the communities — and if the communities are not involved, then the most vulnerable, the poor, will be dealing with the consequences.

At the same time, we know that the world's electricity consumption keeps increasing. That's a major problem, because although we are trying to add more and more renewables to the energy supply systems, the renewables cannot keep up with the increasing electricity demand. This means that not only can we not retire the old systems, but we might also need to use more fossil energy to satisfy this growing demand. And of course, that means more pressure on the fragile environment.

We know some of the data centers are being placed in locations that are already dry or suffering from what we refer to as "water bankruptcy," based on the report we published in January. These are major issues. More pressure on the environment [puts] more pressure on humans, and this recipe means [we could have] a kind of reinforcing degradation loop that would jeopardize both nature and human society.

SP: Who is benefiting the most from AI's expansion, and who is being excluded?

KM: AI expansion is benefiting humanity as a whole. It has changed our lifestyle; it has provided a lot of opportunities and improvements. But at the same time, it has some consequences. The issue that we see right now is that the richer communities and countries of the world are the ones that are benefiting from it the most, and within those communities and countries, it's the rich who are also profiting more from the expansion. If you look at the investment landscape of AI, you can see that there is a lot of push from a number of strong players and private investors. And they don't bear the costs when it comes to pollution, water bankruptcy, land degradation and so on.

If you think about the emissions, they are contributing to global warming, and everybody would suffer from it. Even the countries that don't have AI infrastructure are affected: If you think about where the critical minerals come from, you see a lot of poor communities, poor countries and poor regions in Africa, South America, parts of Asia, where people don't have basic infrastructure — they don't even have clean drinking water and energy infrastructure. They don't benefit from this expansion and the profits and utilities it provides. It's the most vulnerable communities and the poor economies that are going to suffer the consequences, while the other ones will benefit more.

SP: How did you estimate AI's growth by 2030, and how likely is it that your numbers will come true, given the fears that AI is a bubble that's about to catastrophically burst?

KM: We were looking at the data centers, and we still think that our projections are conservative. There is a lot of push from the private sector to further growth. Countries are also seeing investment in AI and data centers as an investment in security, sovereignty and other matters, so there's also a competition there. Some of the investments — some of the decisions about expanding AI — are not necessarily based on comprehensive assessments. Investments remain a bid to stay in the race, and that means more and more push. So we think that what we have projected is probably very conservative.

SP: China is scaling up its energy capacity together with data center buildout, and it is putting data centers in the ocean to try to solve the hardware cooling issue. What do you make of this strategy, and should other countries learn from it?

KM: China's more centralized decision-making system provides advantages, but I think we need to be careful about generalizing the information of one or two projects highlighted by the media to the overall strategy.

We know that China has been expanding its renewable energy production capacity, and that's definitely a good thing. We have to make sure that the additional load of AI would not mean more fossil energy and would not compromise the decarbonization process. But at the same time, we should note that just scaling up renewables is not sufficient if you're thinking about decarbonization. We need a massive addition of renewables if we're going to reverse climate change, and we are not seeing strong enough signs of that around the world. So that's something that we have to be worried about.

That has been the challenge created for the world because of the expansion of AI. When it comes to putting things under the ocean, I think we do not yet have enough information and enough experience to judge if those things come with less environmental impact. What we hide would not be impact-free; there are also other impacts to worry about.

SP: What are some other solutions to the pressures AI is putting on the environment and people? How should we approach the rapid expansion to ensure it is fair?

KM: We offer a framework based on a number of principles about making the AI governance system more fair and transparent and sustainable. So, those are the principles suggested, and they bring responsibility to all stakeholders, including the developers and service providers — those who provide the technology and have responsibilities of ensuring that their systems are more transparent and efficient.

Then, we have the governments that have the responsibility of ensuring that information becomes available, that footprints are properly monitored and disclosed and regulated. They can use a range of incentives, mechanisms or penalties to ensure that footprints are reduced across the supply chain — and I insist on that — from the mines to the landfill. So, that can be done; pollution taxes can be charged and so on. [Governments should ensure] that those who have to deal with the consequences also benefit from the profits and the opportunities that data centers bring to their communities. Decisions must be made based on resource availability and the environmental consequences taken into account.

Users also can do a better job of making smarter choices by using AI more responsibly and only when it's absolutely necessary. When using AI, choose the right models, and be mindful of what is happening behind the scenes. Is it really necessary to generate another image? Is it really necessary to generate a video? Is it necessary to use the model in the "thinking mode"? Together, all the stakeholders can make a difference, and users can also call for more transparency and force governments to take action to force the service providers to provide more information and be more transparent.

Editor's note: This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Rainforests are some of the most important and diverse ecosystems on Earth. Found across several continents, these vast forests are home to millions of plants and animal species, many of which can't be found anywhere else. Many rainforests, both tropical and temperate, also play a crucial role in regulating the planet's climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen.

Rainforests vary immensely in size. Some stretch across multiple countries and cover millions of square miles, while others are much smaller but still support incredible biodiversity. Understanding the relative size of these rainforests helps us appreciate their role on our planet and the challenges involved in preserving them.

In this quiz, you'll test your knowledge by sorting the top 10 biggest rainforests from largest to smallest. Click on and drag the blue rectangles to place them in the right order. Remember to log in to put your name on the leaderboard; hints are available if you click the yellow button.

Related quizzes:

Earth quiz: What do you know about our planet's most amazing features?

Yellowstone quiz: How much do you know about the first national park?

Equator quiz: Can you name the 13 countries that sit on Earth's central line?

A giant blob of abnormally cold water in the North Atlantic Ocean is shifting the Indian summer monsoon, threatening the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people, new research suggests.

The link between these two systems highlights a previously unrecognized connection that could inform weather forecasts in South Asia and shed light on climatic events elsewhere, scientists say.

The Indian summer monsoon is a rainfall pattern that lasts from June to September and is driven by temperature differences between the warm northern Indian Ocean and cooler seawater below the equator. Historically, the monsoon triggered heavy rainfall along the west coast of India and a huge region of northern India called the Indo-Gangetic Plain. But since 1999, this pattern has changed dramatically, the researchers reported in a new study.

Northwest India now receives about 25% more rain during the monsoon season than it did before 1999, while the Indo-Gangetic Plain gets roughly 4% less, the team found. This is disastrous for farmers, in particular, because their soils and crops are adapted to the old rainfall pattern, said study first author Mahendra Nimmakanti, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Science's Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

"India is largely dependent on agriculture," Nimmakanti told Live Science in a joint interview with study co-author Matthew Huber, a professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Purdue University in Indiana. Higher-than-normal precipitation in northwest India is causing flash floods and crop losses, because agriculture in this region is adapted to dry conditions. Meanwhile, the Indo-Gangetic Plain has seen periods of drought that also caused crop declines and impacted farmers' livelihoods, Nimmakanti said.

Previous studies have linked shifts in the Indian summer monsoon to changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a giant web of ocean currents in the Atlantic that regulates the global climate and carries heat to the Northern Hemisphere. Data suggests the AMOC is slowing due to climate change and releasing less heat in the North Atlantic Ocean than it did before. This may be causing a southward shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, a band of low-pressure atmospheric conditions around the equator that drives tropical monsoons, including the Indian summer monsoon.

But these studies didn't specify how the Indian monsoon might shift or explain the underlying mechanism in detail, Nimmakanti said. "They generally explain that if there is a weakening of AMOC, that suppresses the Indian summer monsoon," he said.

One part of the problem is that current climate models do not show the changes in the Indian monsoon that have happened in real life, possibly because they also don't fully capture shifts in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. This is especially true for a region southeast of Greenland known as the "cold blob," where the water was colder between 1901 and 2021 than it was in the late 1800s, even as the ocean around it heated up.

The cold blob suggests the AMOC is weakening because it points to a reduction in the amount of heat reaching the North Atlantic.

To pinpoint how and why the Indian monsoon has changed, the researchers fed precipitation data, sea surface temperature records and other real-life observations into dozens of climate models. This reproduced the shifts observed over the past 27 years. However, the results only implied a correlation between shifts in the North Atlantic and changes in the monsoon, not that the former directly caused the latter.

To figure out if North Atlantic sea surface temperatures caused the Indian monsoon to behave strangely, the team added and removed the cold blob in a simulation. The results showed that the cold blob has shifted the Indian monsoon by creating a strong temperature gradient over the North Atlantic, which, in turn, affects jet stream winds and pressure systems in the atmosphere above Eurasia.

Specifically, the jet stream above the North Atlantic has intensified, and a "blocking" system over the Ural Mountains in western Russia has strengthened, Huber said. As a result, weather systems in India have changed, sucking moist air toward the country's northwest and away from other regions.

"It's a shifting of the high- and low-pressure systems," Huber said. "Realizing that these two systems were directly linked through this wave train coming off the North Atlantic, that was novel."

More than 1 billion people in India and other parts of South Asia depend on the monsoon for food security and economic stability. The new results, published April 27 in the journal AGU Advances, could help forecasters predict extreme rainfall and drought events in India and neighboring countries like Pakistan during the monsoon season.

Some researchers think the Indian monsoon is a key tipping point within the global climate, and the findings suggest the system crossed a threshold in 1999. Since then, the cold blob has caused a "persistent jet stream reorganization," leading to abrupt shifts in the monsoon, according to the study.

It's unclear how the Indian monsoon will evolve under intensifying climate change, because climate models produce different predictions of what will happen in the North Atlantic, and other drivers may come into play as the world changes, Huber said.

"What we do now know is that this is one of the key building blocks of formulating a theory for what will happen in the future," he said.

In southwest China, Chinese soldiers load and fire rockets toward the sky as aircraft and drones circle overhead, dropping their toxic cargo into the air. The weapons are not trained on an enemy, and the planes aren't dropping bombs. Instead, they are targeting the clouds hovering in the sky.

This footage is just a tiny snapshot of the massive, countrywide effort to seed the clouds with rain at an unprecedented scale.

More than 50 countries around the world use cloud seeding to modify the weather at small scales, including the United States.

But China is the world leader, employing around 50,000 people; using thousands of rocket launchers and dozens of planes; and investing the equivalent of billions of dollars in these initiatives, experts told Live Science.

In 2018, China embarked on its most ambitious cloud seeding plan. The Tianhe ("Sky River") project aimed to create a permanent airborne water "corridor" from one river basin to another on the Tibetan Plateau. The project was intended to be part of the country's much bigger South-North Water Transfer project — a massive effort to transfer water to China's highly populated and water-scarce North and East.

From the start, the Sky River faced scathing criticism from scientists who said the project was unworkable. Yet China forged ahead.

China's pursuit of such a scientifically questionable geoengineering technology shows just how far Chinese authorities are prepared to go to achieve the country's water and climate goals. It also reveals how the Chinese government views the natural world, experts have said.

"There is an impetus to control and to view the environment as a machine or an infrastructure that can be controlled," Emily Yeh, a professor of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, told Live Science.

The science of cloud seeding

China uses cloud seeding to produce precipitation to build up snowpack, help alleviate droughts, reduce the impact of hailstorms, and create skies clear of clouds and pollution for official events — as it did most famously during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, experts told Live science.

But cloud seeding can't create rain from an empty sky. Instead, it causes existing clouds to generate precipitation more efficiently by injecting particles into a cloud. Water droplets then coalesce around these particles, and the water eventually falls as rain or snow.

"Every single drop in any cloud you have ever seen — there's a particle in it," Rob Rauber, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told Live Science. Cloud seeding speeds up the raindrop-forming process by introducing more particles, he explained.

There are two main ways to do this, depending on whether the temperature of the clouds is above or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius). Warm-cloud seeding is known as hygroscopic seeding, while cold-cloud seeding is called glaciogenic seeding.

"They have the same general goals or approach," Jeff French, head of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, told Live Science. "And that is to introduce something into the cloud that would increase the efficiency in which cloud droplets or ice crystals are able to grow to precipitation-size particles and fall out of cloud either as rain or as snow."

A salt such as sodium chloride is typically used for hygroscopic seeding to attract water droplets, French said. Glaciogenic seeding, by contrast, takes advantage of cold clouds' supercooled water — water that is liquid even when temperatures are below freezing — by introducing silver iodide. This substance has a similar structure to ice and collides with supercooled water in a cloud, causing it to freeze and eventually fall from the cloud, French said.

Scientists insert seeding particles into clouds in a number of ways, including by dropping them from planes and drones, firing shells or rockets into the clouds from the ground, or burning materials in chambers that release the combustion byproducts into the air.

Scientists are still learning exactly when and how to use these techniques most effectively. Rauber and French both noted that it's difficult to quantify cloud seeding's impact.

"It becomes kind of a quagmire when you ask that question: 'Does cloud seeding work?'," French said. For his research, he used airplanes, ground sensors and radar across the U.S. Mountain West to measure the effects of seeding from aircraft on the initiation and growth of crystals and eventual snowfall. "From a physical standpoint, I can say very confidently that cloud seeding works," French said.

However, that experiment was in cold, mountainous conditions, and the impact of cloud seeding depends on many conditions, so tracking whether cloud seeding increases precipitation over a longer period and in different conditions can be challenging.

"Not all clouds are created equal," French said. Some are colder or warmer, and the seeding material won't work as well; in others, the size or distribution of droplets makes precipitation less likely. Even within a small region, the snowfall varies tremendously from one point to another. And beyond a small region, all bets are off.

"If you have a very successful cloud seeding program, that is producing, maybe 7% or 9% or even 10% more precipitation over a mountain range, downstream of that mountain range, the impact may be 1%," French said. "But it is a really difficult number to get our arms around."

French added that scientists should be careful to not overpromise what cloud seeding can accomplish.

"If the promise is that cloud seeding is going to eliminate droughts even on a local level, the answer is no, it can't live up to that. There's no scientific evidence," French said. But if targeted properly, it can moderately increase natural precipitation, he said.

Cloud seeding on the Tibetan Plateau

Despite cloud seeding's limitations, China has established weather modification bureaus across the country.

"They have a whole campus of people who are working in the weather modification field," Rauber said. "They have a fleet of aircraft — they're on a whole different scale than anything that goes on anywhere else in the world."

Chinese researchers claim that the country has made huge strides in its weather modification. Reports from state-owned media suggested that weather modification efforts increased precipitation by 168 billion tons between 2020 and 2025, and that in experiments, just one cup of cloud seeding material generated 30 Olympic-size pools' worth of precipitation over an area the size of Yellowstone National Park in the arid Xinjiang region.

These weather modifications have also been conducted on the Tibetan Plateau. The vitally important region, nicknamed Asia's Water Tower, is the source of multiple major rivers that supply water to nearly 2 billion people across Asia. But the plateau is facing increasing desertification and glacier loss due to human-caused climate change and other human activities such as overgrazing animals.

China's cloud-seeding ambitions for the plateau reached a whole new level in 2018, when authorities announced the Sky River project. The controversial project aimed to use cloud seeding to create precipitation across a 620,000-square-mile (1.6 million square kilometers) area in the Tibetan Plateau — about the size of Alaska — to divert Indian monsoon rains above the Yangtze River basin and channel the water to the Yellow River basin. From the Tibetan Plateau, the Yellow River flows north and east into the parched northern regions of China, while the Yangtze flows south and east into less-water-scarce areas. The initial plan claimed the project would transfer up to 7% of the country's total annual water consumption, reports noted.

The atmospheric channel was intended to be part of the country's colossal South-North Water Transfer Project, circumventing the region's challenging terrain by moving the water in the sky instead.

The plan, due to be completed in 2025, called for seeding this atmospheric river using tens of thousands of silver iodide-burning chambers on the ground, linked to a series of meteorological satellites that would analyze the weather conditions. Information from these satellites would automatically trigger the burners when the conditions were suitable for cloud seeding.

However, the plan was immediately met with a barrage of criticism from scientists in China. In a translated statement, Hancheng Lu, a professor at the National University of Defense Technology's School of Meteorology and Oceanography, called the project "an absurd and fantastical project with neither scientific basis nor technological feasibility."

The project was unworkable because it is not possible to convert all atmospheric moisture to rain, or to channel moisture in this way, Yeh said.

As of 2022, researchers were working on a significantly scaled-back version of the project. However, China's official channels have gone dark on the topic.

China's newly announced five-year plan, which sets out the policy direction of the country from 2026 to 2030, references weather modification enhancements but doesn't mention this specific project, according to reports from Chinese media.

This has led experts to speculate that the project was quietly canceled.

"When one goes to China and asks atmospheric scientists not involved in it about it, they just sort of laugh, and it's like this embarrassing incident," Yeh said. "It was never possible."

To see whether the project was still going forward, Live Science reached out to several researchers involved in the project, but they did not reply by the time of publication.

The fears of cloud seeding

The pursuit of the Sky River project — despite the low likelihood that it would ever work —— has caused significant alarm in neighboring countries. India relies on the monsoon rains and rivers such as the Brahmaputra, which starts in the Tibetan Plateau before flowing through India and Bangladesh on a 1,800-mile-long (2,900 km) route to the sea. There are also suspicions about cloud seeding being used to cause flooding across borders.

Many of these fears are overblown, experts told Live Science. Rauber noted that cloud seeding can't influence weather enough to reduce water in a wider weather system.

"This is always a question of, 'Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul?'" Rauber said. But the amount of water in storm clouds "is way greater than anything cloud seeding is going to extract."

Climate geoengineering

China's all-in pursuit of technologies like cloud seeding — even on the internationally important and politically sensitive Tibetan Plateau — has raised concerns that China is prepared to go to extreme lengths to engineer its way out of its problems — even when it involves scientifically dubious geoengineering projects with massive risks.

China's determination to address climate change and investment in megaprojects that attempt to engineer the natural world, such as the upcoming Motuo megadam in Tibet and colossal tree-planting projects in northern China, are also signs that China is moving toward larger climate geoengineering, experts have suggested.

This may even involve attempts to change how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface, experts have speculated.

"Given similarities, weather modification could serve as a means to incrementally build legitimacy for solar radiation management, in China and beyond, which may ultimately make it possible to deploy it," researchers argued in a 2019 study.

However, there's no evidence that China is currently pursuing such climate modifications, and it's unlikely they'd do so without some cooperation or buy-in from other countries, researchers wrote in 2023.

"It is currently unlikely that China would deploy SRM unilaterally. But its weather modification programme does demonstrate the country's willingness and capability to undertake large-scale atmospheric intervention projects," the study authors wrote.

Solar radiation modification aims to release particles such as sulfur high into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space in an effort to limit global heating. It is being increasingly investigated by researchers and governments. The controversial concept has never been demonstrated on a large scale, and studies suggest it has many potential risks, such as the potential to shut down monsoon rains.

Scientists have already seen some of the negative impacts of natural solar radiation modification, for instance in the aftermath of large volcanic eruptions, such as Tambora in 1815. "It led to the suppression of the monsoon, because the monsoon is driven by heating from the sun, Rauber said. "And that cuts back on rain in tropical areas, and that causes droughts, which causes all sorts of diseases and can lead to mass starvation," he added.

"The evidence from nature is don't mess with Mother Nature," he said.

A colossal chunk of sea ice roughly the size of Texas is missing from the west coast of Antarctica, and scientists fear it might never form again.

Antarctica is currently in winter, which runs from March to October on the southernmost continent. During the winter months, floating sea ice surrounding the continent typically grows, driving currents that regulate Earth's climate. But this year, there's a notable ice gap over the Bellingshausen Sea, on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Satellite observations have revealed that around 250,000 square miles (650,000 square kilometers) of sea ice hasn't formed yet, compared with the average amount of sea ice between 1991 and 2020, The Guardian reported last week. For comparison, the ice gap covers an area slightly larger than France or nearly the size of Texas.

Will Hobbs, a sea ice-ocean interaction scientist at the University of Tasmania, told The Guardian that he was "concerned" by the lack of sea ice and that it was "depressing." Hobbs noted that this year represents the third time in four years that the region's sea has been very low.

"I don't think we will see sea ice there any more," he said. "It's done."

Researchers still have a lot to learn about sea ice changes in Antarctica. Hobbs said that the sea ice loss was likely linked to changes in the ocean and that scientists are trying to determine whether global warming was a factor.

Sea ice has declined much more slowly in Antarctica than in the Arctic. But in recent years, scientists have been witnessing an astonishing change in the sea ice extent. One record low in 2016 was followed by another in 2022 and then a third in 2023.

Edward Doddridge, a physical oceanographer at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies in Australia, told ABC News (Australia) that he was no longer surprised by sea ice loss.

"It's not good news, but it has become a pattern that we're expecting now," Doddridge said. "A warming world is going to have less sea ice."

The diminished winter sea ice is likely to have a variety of knock-on effects. For example, this area of sea ice normally provides important habitat for animals like krill and penguins. Sea ice also plays an important role in regulating the climate, including by driving key ocean currents, insulating the ocean from the sun, and protecting ice shelves at the mouths of glaciers.

Down the coast from the missing sea ice, researchers have warned that a key ice shelf is about to disintegrate from Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier — nicknamed the "Doomsday Glacier" because its collapse could raise sea levels by 2.1 feet (65 centimeters) in the coming centuries, flooding coastal communities worldwide. The ice shelf helps protect the mouth of the glacier by acting as a buttress, thereby restraining the flow of ice from the glacier into the sea.

Thwaites Glacier has been melting rapidly since the 1980s, which is part of a wider concern for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that it helps to support. The collapse of such an ice sheet is considered one of the major environmental tipping points, or "points of no return," that humanity must avoid in the fight to rein in climate change.

The San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems are at their highest levels of tectonic stress in 1,000 years, raising the threat of a major, imminent earthquake that could devastate Southern California, a new study finds.

The faults could rupture separately or together, thanks to an "earthquake gate" between them at Cajon Pass, where the San Jacinto fault splits from the main trace of the San Andreas fault. Researchers discovered that Cajon Pass can prevent or facilitate earthquakes moving between the faults, depending on how similar their stress levels are at the time of rupture.

And right now, the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults appear to have comparable, extremely elevated stress levels, potentially spelling trouble for Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and the Coachella Valley, the team warned.

"Our results show that stress levels on multiple fault segments are now at or above the highest values seen in the past millennium and that the region may be capable of a large through-going rupture involving both fault systems," study first author Liliane Burkhard, a planetary geologist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said in a statement.

The San Andreas and San Jacinto faults have caused 36 earthquakes with magnitudes of 6.4 or above in the past 1,000 years. Southern California's last "big one" was a magnitude 7.9 event in 1857, when a 205-mile (330 kilometers) segment of the San Andreas fault slipped horizontally between Parkfield and Cajon Pass. That rupture did not propagate through Cajon Pass, but a similar megaquake in 1812 did, suggesting this could happen again in what is now a much more built-up and densely populated environment, according to the study.

Almost 170 years have passed since the 1857 megaquake, raising fears that another huge earthquake could be due to hit soon.

To estimate this risk, Burkhard and her colleagues built a model replicating the last 1,000 years of major earthquake activity along the southern San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems.

The researchers used observations such as tree-ring records and age data from sediments that have been displaced to reconstruct Southern California's earthquake history. They fed this information into the model, which simulated the accumulation, release and propagation of tectonic stress in the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults.

The results, published June 3 in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, suggest the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults are primed for an Earth-shattering rupture, which may involve the earthquake gate at Cajon Pass opening to unleash more destruction than a single-fault event would on its own.

If a rupture were to occur along the two branches of the San Andreas fault that connect at Cajon Pass, it would be a joint rupture, according to the study. If both branches of the San Andreas fault and the San Jacinto fault were involved, this would constitute a tripartite rupture.

The chance of each event happening and the timing of a potential rupture are unknown, but understanding how much stress is building up inside the system could help planners and policymakers prepare for whatever comes next, Burkhard said.

"What we can say is that the system is critically stressed, and that physics-based models like this one give us a clearer picture of the range of scenarios we should be prepared for," she said. "That information matters for hazard assessment, infrastructure planning, and emergency preparedness."

The researchers say their model could apply to other fault junctions and be used as a tool for hazard assessment globally. "We are using rigorous, quantitative science to better understand the risk facing millions of people," Burkhard said.

This awesome astronaut photo shows the striking symmetry of "twin" stratovolcanoes at the heart of Java, Indonesia. The parallel peaks are an eye-catching reminder of the region's extreme tectonic activity.

Mount Sundoro (also known as Sindoro or Sindara) on the left of the image, reaches a maximum height of 10,331 feet (3,149 meters). Its partner, Mount Sumbing, sits to the southeast (on the right of the image) and is slightly taller, at 11,056 feet (3,370 m) above sea level.

Both are considered active. Although Sumbing has not erupted since 1730, Sundoro has blown its top more recently, in 1971, and has experienced seismic activity as recently as 2012, according to the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program.

The volcanoes' peaks are just 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) apart. A raised ridge with a major highway runs perpendicularly between them.

Each volcano also has a smaller, secondary cone on its flank left over from previous eruptions (to the upper left of Sundoro and the upper right of Sumbing in the image), and their orientations make the volcanoes look like mirror images of each other.

The slopes of both cones are covered with rings of dark-green forest that sharply terminate at their bases. The volcanic soils surrounding the mountains are excellent for growing crops such as rice, corn, coffee and sugarcane, which has led to the deforestation of their surroundings, according to NASA's Earth Observatory.

This matching coloration accentuates the similarities between the pair, especially when viewed from above.

One of the few differences between Sundoro and Sumbing is that the latter volcano has a sizable crater at its summit, which was carved out by the 1730 eruption. As a result, the larger volcano appears to have a darker point at its top.

The volcanoes are commonly referred to as "twins," due to their near-identical profiles. However, local people often call them "husband and wife," according to a local travel site. In this narrative, Sumbing is considered the husband due to its slight height advantage and "more masculine" profile.

Sundoro and Sumbing are part of the wider Dieng Volcanic Complex, which consists of around 20 volcanic cones stretching across central Java. Indonesia is also positioned along the "Ring of Fire," a roughly horseshoe-shaped arc of volcanoes that runs along a series of tectonic plate boundaries encircling the Pacific Ocean.

Over the past few years, there have been a number of significant eruptions in Indonesia, including a pair of violent blasts at Mount Lewotobi Laki-laki, on Flores Island, in 2024 and 2025. As of June 2026, there are seven ongoing eruptions in Indonesia — the most of any nation.