Sunday, July 19, 2026

Shocking Revelations Out of West Antarctica


 July 17, 2026

Image by Cassie Matias.

It’s mid-winter but a large area of West Antarctica that should be frozen solid is not frozen. What’s up?

Antarctica is the coldest spot on the planet where the average winter temperature is -34.4°C (-30°F), but it does vary by region. For example, inland locations like the South Pole average around -60°C (-76°F), while coastal areas such as the Antarctic Peninsula range between -12°C and -20°C (10°F to -4°F).

The area recently experienced a winter heatwave, but that has passed. Winter heatwaves happen on occasion, but the ice always, always, always refreezes for as long as anybody can remember. But satellite photos d/d July 12, 2026, by the University of Colorado Boulder’s Snow and Ice Data Center show a large portion of West Antarctica 150,000 square miles that’s typically frozen this time of year shockingly ice free! Something is wrong.

Scientists Identify Thin Vulnerability of West Antarctica

Of even more concern than failure of refreezing in the dead of winter, the following headline appears in Space Daily d/d June 20, 2026 and serves as a shocking backdrop to the recent news: Scientists say the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Collapse With Very Little Additional Warming and the Four Metres of Sea Level Rise that Would Follow Cannot be Stopped Once it Begins.

“A modelling study published in Communications Earth & Environment in June 2025 found that West Antarctic Ice Sheet could begin an irreversible collapse at ocean temperatures between zero and 0.25°C above current levels — meaning the threshold may have already been reached,” Ibid.

Still, nobody really knows for sure how soon or how far sea levels will rise, but the direction is known. It’s up!

That was then. Today, parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet don’t refreeze. Hmm.

Civilization is currently living through break-neck climate change. It’s reflected in erratic climate system behavior. The entire global system has gone bonkers, unpredictable, ecosystems threatened everywhere. As it happens, science has isolated the main culprit as too much heat; it’s excessive greenhouse gas emissions CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

CO2 has been on a rampage as oil and gas companies crank up production.

Based Upon AI Analyses, July 2026: “Carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change. It traps heat, so the more of it in the air, the warmer the planet runs, which is why its concentration is the most closely watched number in climate science. Almost everyone has seen the chart of that number climbing since the 1950s.But the line is not just going up, it is getting steeper. The air took on more CO2 in the last decade than in any 10-year stretch since record-keeping began in 1959, and this past May the monthly average at Mauna Loa hit 432 parts per million, the highest ever measured.”

It’s hard for scientists to accept global warming so pervasive, so unexpected that it halts Antarctic refreezing in the dead of winter. No scientific models predicted this.

As a prelude, the past couple of years science did provide clues. An article in Inside Ecology d/d May 11, 2026 describes the background: Antarctic Sea Ice Defied Global Warming for Decades – Now Hidden Ocean Heat is Breaking Through, to wit: “For decades, Antarctica seemed to defy global warming. Since satellites began monitoring the poles in the late 1970s, the seasonal growth and retreat of Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater that expands around the continent each winter – appeared remarkably resilient. It was often described as the ‘heartbeat of the planet.”

The “one-in-3.5 million” Happenstance

“Since 2015 Antarctic sea ice has declined sharply. In 2023, winter sea ice extent fell to record lows — so far below the long-term average that scientists considered it an event with roughly a one-in-3.5 million probability of occurring by chance,” Ibid.

A “one-in-3.5 million” proposition demands attention. Those odds demand analysis, a wake-up call, an omen of change, and sure enough, three years later the strangest thing happens, refreeze fails in a region of brutally cold West Antarctica.

There are other omens, e.g., Hektoria Glacier (Antarctica) retreated 8 kilometers (5 miles) in only two months; one-half of the structure collapsing in record time. This is the fastest glacier collapse ever, and the message to the world is very clear: Global Warming looks like it’s ahead of schedule. (Antarctica Just Saw the Fastest Glacier Collapse Ever Recorded, ScienceDaily d/d February 26, 2026)

Another early warning signal: “Researchers have discovered dozens of new methane seeps littering the ocean floor in the Ross Sea coastal region of Antarctica, raising concerns of an unknown positive climate feedback loop that could accelerate global warming,” a decidedly negative configuration. (Methane Leaks Multiplying Beneath Antarctic Ocean Spark Fears of Climate Doom Loop, LiveScience d/d Oct. 15, 2025)

And more forewarnings: Polar scientists have been warning, with more fervor than ever before, of a rapidly deteriorating Antarctica, especially since 2024. Their warnings via press releases address the public at large; as politicians, especially Americans, care less. Major warnings by scientists since 2024: (1) August 2024 the 11th Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research attended by 1,500 scientists: Gino Casassa, glaciologist head of Chilean Antarctic Institute claimed: “Based upon current trends, sea levels will be up 13’ by 21oo.” This is the first time a high-level scientist has made such an alarming forecast. (2) November 2024, 450 polar scientists called an emergency meeting in Australia to make a public announcement: “If we don’t act, and quickly, the melting of Antarctica ice could cause catastrophic sea level rise around the globe within our lifetimes.” This is the first time polar scientists have predicted ‘catastrophic sea level rise with our lifetimes.’ (3) A February 2025 study in Nature: Worldwide Glacier Meltdown Underway, a 20-year study by 35 international teams identified terrestrial glacier losses that are larger than Greenland and Antarctica but not found in scientific models of sea level rise, yet described “staggering loses” of terrestrial glacier systems.

The West Antarctic downturn over the past decade was not predicted by climate models. This means the decline is especially concerning and suggest things may be unfolding faster than scientific models can capture.

Accordingly, that matters a lot because sea ice reflects sunlight back into space, one of the planet’s major albedo (reflective) sources that helps keep the climate system stable and it helps drive ocean currents that lock away heat and carbon deep underwater. This sudden change will bring serious far-reaching consequences for the climate system and for Antarctica’s ecosystems, already starting to show the impact.

Why should anybody care if Antarctic sea ice does not refreeze? Most people will surely shake it off as one more issue not to worry about today. And that is understandable. But when the dashboard of their cars blink red, they freak out, gotta find a service station immediately or the engine might freeze-up, who knows what’s going on?

In similar fashion, Antarctica is the planet’s dashboard flashing red, nonstop.

The failure of the nations of the world to cut CO2 emissions, as agreed by 195 countries at Paris 2015, cannot be talked about enough. Only a couple of countries, out of 195 signatories, are tracking Paris 2015 commitments to cut CO2 emissions by 2030. They agreed to cut CO2 emissions by 2030 via Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the core climate action plans submitted by countries under the 2015 Paris Agreement. They collectively (to a person, 195 delegates) recognized excessive fossil fuel emissions as an existential risk to society in 2015. That remains but it’s much worse now with global heat thriving like never before on record-setting CO2 emissions.

Where are they?

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

Social Security is a Problem of Income Distribution, Not Demographics

 July 17, 2026

The rich almost completely control debate in this country. There is no better proof of this fact than the current debate over the future of Social Security.

This has been conveniently framed as a problem of demographics. You know, too many people living long into retirement and not enough kids entering the workforce. That sounds compelling, as long as we don’t try to think about it too much.

First, we knew this basic story long ago. On the life expectancy side, we’re actually doing somewhat worse (better from the standpoint of the program’s finances) than was expected in 1982, the last time there was a major reform to the program. The projections from that year showed men living on average 16.6 years after they turned 65. We are beating that some in the current projections at 18.2 years. But the story for women looks considerably worse than was projected in 1982: 20.7 years now compared to a projection of 22.6 years in 1982. So, we can’t say the problem is people are living longer than expected.

The fertility rate has fallen behind projections, and that has made the financing of the program worse. But the big story is that wage growth has fallen far behind the pace projected in 1982. The projection in 1982 was that real wages (the gap between wage growth and prices) would grow 1.8 percent annually for the indefinite future.  And this wage growth was assumed to be for the workforce as a whole; there was no anticipation that there would be substantial changes in the wage distribution.

Inequality Matters Big Time for the Finances of Social Security

If real wages had grown as projected, they would have increased by more than 120 percent between 1982 and the present. Instead, median wages have risen by just over 30 percent.

A big part of this story is that productivity growth has been weaker than was projected. But an even larger part is that there has been a huge upward redistribution of income over this period. If wages had kept pace with productivity growth, they would be more than 60 percent higher than they are today.

This directly matters for Social Security’s finances for two reasons. The first is that a much larger share of wage income has gone over the payroll cap. The cap rises in step with average wages, not the typical worker’s wages. As a larger share of wage income went to those at the top, Wall Street types, CEOs and other top executives, and highly paid professionals, less was subject to the Social Security tax. In 1982, only 10 percent of wage income avoided taxation. Now it’s close to 18 percent of wage income.

And since the turn of the century, a larger share of income has been going to corporate profits. This money also escapes taxation for Social Security.

There is also the issue that if wages had been growing more rapidly over the last half-century, tax revenue would be higher relative to benefit payments. Benefit payments after retirement are indexed to prices. If wages outpace prices, tax revenue increases relative to benefits. The Trustees calculate that a 0.1 percentage point increase in the annual rate of real wage growth is equivalent to a 0.2 percentage point increase in the tax rate.

If real wages had grown by roughly 1.0 percentage point faster over the last half-century, and were projected to continue to grow at that pace, it would eliminate most of the projected shortfall in the trust fund.

The Indirect Effect of Growing Wage Inequality

This direct effect of growing inequality accounts for far more than half of the gap in Social Security’s finances, but there is also a very important indirect effect. In 1960, the Social Security tax rate was 6.0 percent, combining the employer and employee side contributions. By 1990, the tax rate had risen to 12.4 percent, an increase of 6.4 percentage points over 30 years. In the last 35 years, the tax rate has not increased at all.

In the context of weak real wage growth and a massive upward redistribution of income, it is understandable that there would be enormous resistance to any further tax increases to support Social Security. But suppose real wage growth had kept pace with productivity over the last half-century, and we had not seen the massive upward redistribution to Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and the rest.

I’m an economist, not a political consultant, but my guess is that if real wages were more than 60 percent higher, most workers would be okay with a 1-2 percentage point increase in the tax rate to secure Social Security for themselves and their children. This was the case for workers in the decades from 1960 to 1990, who put up with much larger tax increases.

They Did Upward Redistribution; It Didn’t Just Happen

The other part of this story that is essential for everyone to understand is that the upward redistribution was brought about by government policy; it did not just happen. The most obvious way this happened was through government-granted patent and copyright monopolies. These government-granted monopolies make folks like Larry Ellison and Bill Gates incredibly rich. They also make prescription drugs and medical equipment very expensive, when they would be cheap in a free market.

The government has protected the financial industry with bailouts, tax policy, and bankruptcy laws that allow private equity barons and Wall Street tycoons to become rich at the expense of the rest of us. If we drafted the laws to promote efficiency, we would have a much smaller financial sector and fewer and poorer billionaires.

We also have written and enforced labor laws to the detriment of unions and workers. Most obviously by banning contracts that require all workers who are represented by a union to pay for that representation. While these contracts are not enforceable in most states, contracts that prevent workers from working for a competitor are enforceable.

These and other policies that were designed to redistribute income upward have had their intended effect of taking money from the rest of us and giving it to the rich and very rich. And now that their upward redistribution has had the effect of undermining the financing of the country’s most important social program, they want to cut Social Security. It’s essential that people stand up to the lies; the problem is the rich taking too much of our money, not overly generous Social Security benefits.

People need to keep their eyes on the ball. It was the rich that took all the money, not retirees getting Social Security benefits.

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.