Scientists Say Arctic Sea Ice Just Set A Disturbing New Record
Source: Washington Post, written by Chris Mooney Two weeks ago, we noted here that the Arctic was on the verge of a scary new record — an unprecedented “lowest winter maximum” for sea ice extent. What that would mean is that during the season of the year when there is the most ice covering the seas of the Arctic, the peak extent of that ice was nonetheless smaller than in any year – at least since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s. And now, the Boulder-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice, has indeed announced that the peak winter Arctic sea ice extent “likely” occurred Feb. 25, and that this maximum “not only occurred early; it is also the lowest in the satellite record.” However, the agency does include several caveats. That includes not only the word “likely,” but also the observation that “a late season surge in ice growth is still possible.” The loss of sea ice around the Arctic has a vast number of consequences. They range from climatic — exposing more dark ocean water, which absorbs more solar radiation than ice does, leading to further warming — to social and cultural: Undermining the subsistence hunting techniques that Alaskan native villages have pursued atop the ice for generations.
The Geoengineering Frame: A War for Our Minds
Article by David Schneider, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org Some may remember the Rio Earth Summit. History points to it as a turning point, when international co-operation “got serious” around a shared problem: dumping carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) into the atmosphere. It happened back in 1992, right as the lures of “climate intervention” were gripping the power structure, who were beginning to conspire yet another quick, cheap, and easy way to escape limits set by nature, while continuing to sweep the long-term damages under the rug. Of course regional weather has been messed with for many decades prior, with lots of damage to ecosystems, but climate intervention takes manipulations to the global scale; it’s a “move-the-sulfur” approach, taking it from smokestacks and putting it into the stratosphere. Grounded on a deep belief in human exceptional-ism and mastery over the rules that govern the universe, the power structure has once again turned to faith in scientific-ism as religion, and their scientist priesthood push the “geoengineering” agenda as the next phase in building an “Earthy paradise” free from all constraint. “Albedo enhancement” technologies that shield Earth from incoming sunlight are the preferred option to dealing with global warming, because it requires little behavioral change to business as usual, it can reduce risks to current generations almost immediately, and it sings harmonically with the tune of “endless growth.” Without solar engineering, the only option would be to allow Earth to restore herself, by us relinquishing our command, and face the harsh realities of suffering consequences from a warmed planet for millennia. The scientific approach is pitched as a more “humane way” to deal with the climate pickle we’re all stuck in together. Weather warfare began back in WWII, yet decades of command and control have only made things worse, not better. More of the same thinking, continued tinkering, will only remove more parts of nature that can never be brought back. Nature can only be poked at so long before she erupts in anger against her attacker. Interestingly, at the same time the power structure assembled in Rio for the Earth Summit twenty-three years ago, they were also busy banging out the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which became the World Trade Organization (WTO). These two contradicting worlds (climate change negotiating and free trade) collided to fashion “sustainable development.” But since then, human emissions have only skyrocketed! In fact, 26% of all human produced emissions ever dumped into the atmosphere since industrialization, occurred over the past three decades! The public may be under the impression that U.S. leaders don’t “believe” in climate science or global warming. But that’s false. It’s all about the frame! In an engineering culture, all problems have solutions. If humans created global warming, then humans will re-engineer things to eliminate the problem. Admitting to global warming under a “geoengineering frame” does not make sense, because another techno-fix will be devised. If we engineered a problem, then we can engineer a solution; so global warming is just a matter of continued intervention in Earth’s climate system. If humans are responsible, then humans will resolve it – scientific-ism preaches. But often with complex systems, there’s the butterfly effect, the unanticipated surprises of chaos, when the cure can be much worse than the disease. It becomes a game of always prescribing new aliments for the side effects caused from the previous interventions – always having to up the ante to maintain satisfaction, creating further destruction of life processes. It’s become a super wicked problem where nemesis is meeting hubris. But, survival resources that create the foundation of life cannot simply be fixed, nor substituted and replaced by more technology. Disrupting the rain, the sunlight, the ability of Earth to respond to our assault and cool herself, is only making the situation much more dangerous. Check any mainstream source today about solar geoengineering and spraying sulfur intentionally to cool Earth, and somewhere it’s guaranteed to compare the process to what large volcanic eruptions naturally do. It’s been dubbed the “Mt. Pinatubo Option,” after the large eruption that cooled the planet in 1991. But really, it’s coal power plants around the world that are the “world’s volcano,” constantly erupting nonstop, turning down the sunlight across the planet, shooting up a continuous supply of sulfur aerosols into our shared global atmosphere. Dirty pollution from Asia and across the world increases Earth’s “albedo” (not to be mixed up with libido, albedo is simply science-speak for the measurement of how reflective something is, where Earth’s albedo is measured in W/m-2). Burning fossil fuels has “accidentally” increased atmospheric albedo – the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere – which dims incoming sunlight and masks the average temperature of Earth in relation to our CO2 forcing. In other words, sulfur pollution from combustion is a form of “unintentional” solar radiation management. This, we’re all contributing to, each time we plug something into the wall, order a cheap product made in Asia, eat a hamburger, take a hot shower, or drive a car. Today, we know why the power structure is hiding. In the late 80s, industrial rich countries began shifting their industry to the “developing world,” places that were happy to have a chance to join in the “good life” of economic success. Billions of people have been lifted from “poverty” as result, but it was not accomplished sustainably. If anything, massive industrialization in Asia has only made the risk of both economic and ecological collapse even greater, and the fall harder than it otherwise would be if leaders had just let the game end right then. But no. Instead, one of the first official acts George H. W. Bush did when he took presidential office was sign into law the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (1990 CAAA), which placed heavy regulation over sulfur pollution on America’s industries. Not an expected response from a Republican President following the Regan era of deregulation and laissez-faire. What was his motivation? Bush needed to address a mounting smog and acid rain crisis, and