On Tuesday, scientists behind a ‘Doomsday Clock’ that calculates the probability of a global cataclysm said that the increasing tension between Russia and the US, North Korea’s latest nuclear test and shortage of aggressive steps to deal with climate change have put the world under serious threat.

In an announcement, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said that the minute hand on the metaphorical clock stayed at three minutes-to-midnight. The clock shows how vulnerable the world is to face disaster because of climate change, nuclear weapons and latest technologies, with midnight denoting catastrophe.

Lawrence Krauss, chair of the bulletin’s Board of Sponsors said that unless the way to think is changed, humanity will remain in grave danger.

Krauss said that both the Iran nuclear agreement and Paris climate pact were good news. However, there is nothing to be much happy about because of nuclear threats, like tension between nuclear-armed states India and Pakistan, and uncertainty that the Paris agreement will result into concrete action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Last year, the scientists behind the bulletin changed the clock from five minutes-to-midnight to three minutes-to-midnight. They adjusted the clock citing the climate change, outsized nuclear weapons arsenals, and modernization of nuclear weapons as ‘extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity’.

Previously, in 1984, the clock was at three minutes-to-midnight, when the bulletin said that the talks between the US and Russia was almost halted.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said that from a climate change perspective, in case midnight on the clock reflects disappearance of humanity, three minutes-to-midnight is too terrible. He isn’t affiliated with the bulletin.

In contrast, Oppenheimer mentioned that if midnight is an indicator that humans have emitted excessive greenhouse gas that hazardous climate change is likely, then, three minutes is a ‘fair analysis’.