
How humans have pushed the Arctic into a ‘new regime'
The Arctic has long filled humans with awe, but there are now profoundly worrying signals coming from the frozen landscape at the top of our planet, and scientists are deeply concerned about its future as the Trump administration pulls the US out of global climate strategy and guts its science agencies.
Last month was extreme: Temperatures in parts of the Arctic spiked 36 degrees Fahrenheit, or 20 Celsius, above normal. By the end of the month, sea ice was at its lowest level ever recorded for February, marking the third straight month of record lows.
This follows a year of concerning signs from the region, including intense wildfires and thawing permafrost pumping out planet-heating pollution.
It paints a grim picture of a region that's been in rapid decline for the last two decades as humans continue to burn fossil fuels. The Arctic now exists within a 'new regime,' where signals such as sea ice loss and ocean temperatures may not always break records, but are consistently more extreme compared to the past, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in its annual health check of the region published in December.
It's a problem with global consequences. The Arctic plays a vital role in global temperatures and weather systems. It's 'sort of like our planetary air conditioning system,' said Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Its decline accelerates global warming, increases sea level rise and helps to drive more extreme weather.
The Arctic is the early warning system for climate change and the loss of sea ice is a clear sign it's in trouble, scientists say. It should be reaching its annual maximum levels of ice at this time of year, but instead it's experiencing record lows.
'I hope that these three months do not act as a precursor to a potential new all-time minimum this summer, because the starting point to the melting season is not good,' said Mika Rantanen, a researcher at the Finnish Meteorological Institute.
Arctic sea ice bottoms out at the end of summer in September. The last 18 years have seen the lowest sea ice levels on record, a downward spiral that will continue, scientists say.
The Arctic will be ice-free in the summer at some point by 2050, even if humans stop pumping out climate pollution, according to a report co-authored by Dirk Notz, head of sea ice at the University of Hamburg. 'It's basically too late to prevent that,' he told CNN.
The first ice-free day could even happen before the end of this decade, according to a separate study published in December.
Sea ice loss is not only damaging to wildlife, plants and the roughly 4 million people who live in the Arctic — it has global consequences. Sea ice acts like a giant mirror, reflecting the sunlight away from the Earth and back into space. As it shrinks, more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the dark ocean, which accelerates global heating.
Part of the reason for the recent run of record-low sea ice is the unusual heat in the Arctic, which has been warming around four times faster than the global average.
Early February's extreme warmth 'was one of the strongest ever recorded,' said Rantanen, who estimates it was probably in the top three of the most intense warming events in the satellite era since the 1970s.
The Arctic landscape is changing too, said the NSIDC's Twila Moon.
The thawing of permafrost — a jumble of soil, rocks and sediment held together by ice — is pervasive, she said, releasing planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane.
Wildfires have become more frequent and intense and wildfire seasons run longer. Last year marked the third time in five years significant, widespread blazes ripped across the Arctic.
These changes are fundamentally altering the ecosystem. For thousands of years, the shrubby landscape of the Arctic tundra stored carbon, but wildfires and thawing permafrost mean that this region is now releasing more carbon than it stores, according to NOAA.
'There's just an overwhelming amount of change happening in the Arctic right now,' said Moon.
What happens in the Arctic has repercussions across the planet.
A warmer Arctic means land ice — glaciers and ice sheets — melts faster, adding to sea level rise. The Greenland ice sheet already sheds around 280 billion tons of ice a year, enough to cover the whole of Manhattan in a layer of ice roughly 2 miles thick.
Rapid warming in the region also weakens the jet stream, altering weather systems that affect billions of people, said Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center. A more meandering jet stream 'makes weather conditions linger longer, leading to more persistent heat waves, cold spells, drought, and stormy periods,' she told CNN.
Scientists say some of these changes can be reversed if humans stop pumping out planet-heating gases, but on timescales ranging from hundreds of years to many thousands. Many of these changes are considered 'relatively irreversible,' Moon said.
There's another threat, too. Scientists' ability to keep tabs on the swift-changing Arctic is being jeopardized by geopolitical upheaval.
Russia's war on Ukraine has meant scientists from the country, the largest Arctic nation, have been excluded from international collaboration. This has already undermined scientists' ability to track what's happening in the Arctic, according to a recent study.
In the US, the Trump administration's sweeping cuts to government climate science jobs is creating serious concern, especially as many measurement systems are maintained by the US. With less US expertise and fewer US scientists, 'it would become much, much harder to understand what's happening' at a vital time for the Arctic, said the University of Hamburg's Notz.
What's happening in the Arctic is one of the starkest indications of 'how powerful we humans have become in changing the face of our planet,' Notz said. 'We are able to wipe out entire landscapes.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Federal research cuts will only make misinformation worse
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them. Photo by fauxels/ pexels Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest casualty of the Trump administration's restructuring of federal research priorities. Following President Donald Trump's executive order on "ending federal censorship," the National Science Foundation canceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect. The overwhelming majority of Americans -- 95% -- believe misinformation's misleading narratives are a problem. Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired. The attack on misleading narrative research Trump's executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies' free speech. The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case. Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 "censorship industrial complex" hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration. The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship. Trump's executive order to "restore free speech," the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. These actions have already led to significant problems -- death threats and harassment included -- for disinformation researchers, particularly women. So let's tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isn't. Misleading content Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts. For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception. Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech. Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. That's what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research. It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the government -- not citizens or businesses -- can be censors. So, private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms. Trump's own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as "sexual content and explicit language," but also anything moderators deem as trying to "trick, defraud or mislead us and other users." Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump's account. Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them. Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the site's algorithm reducing "the reach of a user if they're frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users." Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to "bot mitigation" procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid. Is it censorship? Republicans say social media companies have been biased against their content, censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly. The "censorship industrial complex" hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged "censorship industrial complex," but that it was focused on conservative voices. But there isn't evidence to support this assertion. Research from 2020 shows that conservative voices are amplified on social media networks. When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts. This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in "community notes" -- X's alternative and Meta's proposed alternative to fact checking - and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts. Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals. Misleading America Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so. Here's how. The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trump's executive order, that many Republicans believe it's true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true. Researchers have also identified a tactic known as "accusation in a mirror." That's when someone falsely accuses one's perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing. So, censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute "accusations in a mirror." Other tactics include "accusation by anecdote." When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories -- sometimes completely fabricated -- that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality. Facts on fact-checking Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers "got it wrong." These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers. Indeed, fact-checking does work to reduce the transmission of misleading content. In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, fact-checkers are rated the most effective. When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it's because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet, research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more. When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made. Seeking solutions Account bans or threats of account suspensions may be more effective than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are also more controversial. They are considered more akin to censorship than fact-check labels. Misinformation research would benefit from identifying solutions that conservatives and liberals agree on. Examples include giving people the option, like on social media platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation moderation on or off. But Trump's executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus, instead of providing protections, the order will likely weaken Americans' defenses. H. Colleen Sinclair is an associate research professor of social psychology at Louisiana State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.


Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard professor turns to private equity to counter Trump research cuts
Under the deal announced Monday, İş Private Equity, a Turkish firm, has committed $39 million to a laboratory run by Gökhan Hotamışlıgil, a professor of genetics and metabolism at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The firm, which is a branch of Turkey's İşbank Group, also plans to invest an undisclosed amount of money in any drug candidates that come out of Hotamışlıgil's laboratory and are moved into a new biotech called Enlila. It's a relatively modest deal, in the scope of investment banking. But the collaboration provides much-needed capital at a time when the model for funding scientific research has been thrown into chaos. Advertisement In the first six months of the Trump administration, government officials terminated at least Advertisement In all, Plans for the İş Private Equity collaboration pre-date the Trump administration's science grant retrenchment. Talks began last year, when Hotamışlıgil traveled to Turkey — where he was born and attended university — for a symposium celebrating İşbank Group's centennial. The event was filled with Nobel laureates, entrepreneurs, and others discussing the future of Turkey. Hotamışlıgil gave a presentation at the event detailing his experience as a scientist and his decades-long work exploring fatty acid binding proteins, or FABPs. This hormone is produced in fat cells and secreted into the blood, where it interacts with proteins to form a substance called fabkin. Elevated levels of fabkin are linked to obesity, The presentation caught the attention of İşbank's chief executive. Financing scientific research has always been a challenge, as Hotamışlıgil detailed to the İşbank Group event crowd. It's not easy to explore scientific unknowns while scrounging up grants and other capital. 'In the past, we were complaining about the principles of funding, which overwhelmingly tilted toward more conservative, more guaranteed outcomes… Then, suddenly, there was no funding,' Hotamışlıgil told STAT. Even now, Hotamışlıgil said he is shocked that a country like the U.S. would pull back its scientific financing so drastically, given how much success it's lent to large corporations and research institutions that elicit international envy. Advertisement The federal cuts have plunged many Chan School staff and faculty into cycles of grief and anger, said Amanda Spickard, the associate dean for research strategy and external affairs. They're now emerging from the daze to brainstorm new ways of replacing lost research dollars. In a letter sent out last week, the school's dean of faculty, Andrea Baccarelli, laid out an initial slate of strategies for replacing lost funding, including asking corporate partners to make $100,000 gifts to support Ph.D. students and post-doctorate fellows. The idea has been well-received by executives in need of highly trained employees, said Sarah Branstrator, managing director of academic strategy and research partnerships at the Chan School. School officials are also hopeful that the İşbank collaboration could be the first of multiple privately financed labs. There have been isolated examples in which investment firms have financed specific university centers or research projects, often for preferential access to any new scientific innovations that come out of the laboratories. Just across the Charles River from the Chan School, Harvard's Wyss Institute has spent the last five years working with an affiliate of the science-focused VC firm Northpond Ventures. Northpond initially committed $12 million to the alliance in 2020, and has made New York investment firm Deerfield Management has been much more aggressive in funding early-stage research. It has committed around $390 million to collaborations with Advertisement Hotamışlıgil's lab may be a unique case, as metabolism has become a hot area of drug development, thanks to the success of Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk's GLP-1 weight loss medications. Obesity-focused startups are still raking in Meanwhile, other areas of public health research, like infectious diseases and vaccines, are a 'It is probably too optimistic to say that government funding could completely be replaced. Government funding is really crucial to keep science as its engine. Having said that, for the school faculty, there are incredible opportunities, in my view,' Hotamışlıgil said. '[This] gives some hope that there's also some alternative ways that we can support science.'

Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Miami Herald
mRNA vaccine technology makes headway via Pitt, Penn State research
A new kind of mRNA vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University could be cheaper to produce and offer a greater level of immunity across multiple variants of the virus. The news comes as mRNA vaccines have been targeted by the Trump administration's recent funding cuts, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all members of the expert vaccine panel the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine safety and eligibility guidelines. Results of the Pitt study, tested in a small group of mice, were published in npj Vaccines, a journal associated with Nature, on June 3. It's considered a proof-of-concept study and will require more research until human clinical trials are possible. Continual mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus - the virus that causes COVID-19 - has presented challenges for scientists' ability to forecast a dominant variant and tailor vaccines effectively, requiring recalibration each year depending on what is currently circulating. "This study demonstrated two key aspects," said Suresh Kuchipudi, senior author on the paper and chair of infectious diseases and microbiology at Pitt's School of Public Health, "that we can produce mRNA vaccines with much less mRNA required, that will significantly lower the cost of the vaccines." And, he said, "It is also possible that with mRNA vaccines, we can provide broad protection across multiple versions of the virus without needing to constantly update." This was possible because of a design called a trans-amplifying vaccine. In traditional mRNA vaccines, a single molecule of RNA - a kind of code that creates viral proteins in the body - is included to help the body recognize and fight off viruses. Amplifying RNA vaccines use two components: that viral protein, as well as another component that helps enhance the mRNA signal. In trans-amplifying mRNA vaccines, those two components are encoded separately, allowing for more flexibility in design and potentially fewer side effects, though the latter needs further study. And instead of using code from one circulating variant, the trans-amplifying vaccine uses code from a "consensus spike protein," meaning it includes mRNA that is conserved across multiple variants, allowing it to provide broader immunity. "After several years, we have seen multiple variants emerge," said Kuchipudi. "If you look at the genetic sequence of the spike protein among all these variants, certain parts are conserved across all. We can design a spike protein that can broadly cover known variants." The new formulation also includes a component called a replicase, which helps to generate a signal in the body with a lower dose of mRNA. Researchers used a replicase based on the Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus (VEEV). "We chose the VEEV replicase because it's a well-studied enzyme known for its ability to amplify target mRNA efficiently," said Kuchipudi in an email. "In our system, it boosts the expression of the vaccine antigen (SARS-CoV-2) without requiring a high starting dose." They also conducted safety studies and found the VEEV replicase did not affect the body's original cells in a negative way. Scientists then measured the presence of antibodies in the injected mice to see how their new vaccine formulation compared to the traditional mRNA vaccine. The mice showed immunity comparable to the original COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and with 40 times less mRNA used. Moderna's current Spikevax formulation is given at 50 micrograms per dose for adults, and Pfizer/BioNTech's Comirnaty contains 30 micrograms (ug) per dose. This could be why many people who received the Moderna vaccine reported more side effects. The trans-amplifying vaccine, by contrast, was given at 20 ug of the VEEV replicase and 0.5 ug of the consensus spike protein mRNA, as well as a lower dose formulation at 20 ugs and 0.05 ugs, respectively. This vaccine could offer greater flexibility and be more cost efficient than the existing COVID vaccines, said Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. "I think it's a worthwhile study," he said. The study is also an example of how much research goes into a product like a vaccine before it becomes available to the public - and this one is still early in the developmental process. Kuchipudi said the team wants to delve deeper into learning more about potential side effects. "We did some early mouse studies and saw no apparent side effects," said Kuchipudi. "We plan to conduct more in-depth safety studies in mice next, focusing on immune responses, inflammation, and any potential off-target effects," or unpredictable side effects that might occur other than at the injection site, or what's typically associated with getting a vaccine. But in the current political climate, it may be harder for scientists to further their research on these kinds of vaccines. On May 28, President Trump rescinded its contract with Moderna, per Reuters reporting. That included more than $700 million in federal monies for vaccine research and development for diseases like bird flu. In a statement to Reuters, an HHS spokesperson said that "after a comprehensive internal review, the agency had determined that the project did not meet the scientific standards or safety expectations required for continued federal investment." Although mRNA vaccines have been around since the 1990s, they have been the face of intense scrutiny after their development was fast-tracked via Operation Warp Speed, the government-backed push to get COVID-19 vaccines into the hands of the public during a deadly pandemic. To date, they have saved 3.2 million lives, said Hotez. "What you should be focusing on, if there are ways you think you can improve the technology, that's what you have to incentivize," he said. The Pitt and Penn State study is illustrative of that, he said. "This is an example of heading toward 2.0." But Hotez is worried about deprioritization of this kind of research in the coming years, especially as infectious disease surveillance infrastructure, including staffing, has been cut, leaving officials in a weaker position to understand and defend against future viruses. "I think the FDA is prematurely shutting down mRNA technology when it has enormous promise," he said. "It's a relatively safe vaccine. Every vaccine technology has strengths and weaknesses ... to toss it out the window for ideological reasons makes no sense." _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.