We’ve had spring weather in early December — and that guarantees 2012 will be the hottest year on record for the United States.

I had reported on Monday that 2012 was virtually certain to be the hottest on record thanks to the warm November and blistering early December. Now Climate Central has done the math:

There is a 99.99999999 percent chance that 2012 will be the hottest year ever recorded in the continental 48 states, based on our analysis of 118 years of temperature records through Dec. 10, 2012.

The chart above is Climate Central’s projection of the 2012 temperature using observations through December 10 and an estimate of typical temperatures for the final 21 days of the month. If this holds true, then 2012 will blow out the previous record (1998) by more than 1°F.

How warm was early December? As Capital Climate calculates using National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) figures:

For the first 10 days of December, new daily record high temperatures have outnumbered record lows by a ratio of 92 to 1. For the 48 contiguous states, the ratio was an incredible 132 to 1, since 3 out of the 10 low records were in Alaska and Hawaii. During the entire week of December 2-8, not a single low temperature record was tied or broken in any of the 50 states, according to NCDC reports. With 3 weeks remaining in the year, the cumulative ratio of heat records to cold records for 2012 has reached 6.0 to 1, more than double the ratio in 2011.

If you want to know how to judge whether these ratios are a big deal, consider that a 2009 National Center for Atmospheric Research study found that the ratio for the entire decade of the 2000s — the hottest decade on record globally — averaged to 2.04, which is roughly double what it was a few decades before (see “Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.“). NCAR noted, “The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.” Seriously.

This year has rewritten the record books — a winter with spring-like temperatures, a spring with summer-like temperatures, and an all-time hottest July.

You may remember that March Came In Like A Lamb and Went Out Like A Globally Warmed Lion On Steroids Who Smashed 15,000 Heat Records. As NOAA reported, in March, “There were  21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date”!

At the time, Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters said, “this is not the atmosphere I grew up with.” He published a detailed statistical analysis concluding, “It is highly unlikely the warmth of the current ‘Summer in March’ heat wave could have occurred unless the climate was warming.”

The science of attributing extreme events to global warming is still emerging, scientists still disagree to what extent a specific event like this heat wave is driven by global warming. But two of the leading experts explain at RealClimate why even small shifts in average temperature mean “the probability for ‘outlandish’ heat records increases greatly due to global warming.” Furthermore, “the more outlandish a record is, the more would we suspect that non-linear feedbacks are at play – which could increase their likelihood even more.”

And now we know have emerging scientific analysis that connects global warming and what is happening to the Arctic to more extreme events like heat waves:

• NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather
• Arctic Warming Favors Extreme, Prolonged Weather Events “Such As Drought, Flooding, Cold Spells And Heat Waves“

And remember, we’ve only warmed about a degree and a half Fahrenheit in the past century.  We are on track to warm five times times that or more this century.

In short, Mother Nature is just getting warmed up!

by Tony Iallonardo, via National Wildlife Federation

One of the sadder rituals in the nation’s capital is the “December surprise,” whereby the administration in power makes controversial pronouncements right around a major holiday. I’d be willing to bet all the candy canes in my stocking that the U.S. State Department, which is currently overseeing an environmental review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, will do just that before the year is out. It will be difficult for State to please everybody, and either polluters or conservation groups are going to be pretty unhappy. Ominously, State has a history of coming up very very short on it’s Keystone XL studies.

Why the State Department? State Department won’t have the final word of course, that’s ultimately going to be up to newly re-elected President Barack Obama. But State’s decision could offer clues about where the President is heading on energy policy over the next four years, and his final decision on the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL is his prime opportunity to signal he is serious about addressing high carbon fuels like tar sands that are speeding climate disruption.

State’s decision will come in the form of a “supplemental environmental impact statement” (SEIS) for the pipeline segment that crosses over Canada and runs to Steele City, Nebraska.

State, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Energy Department, is charged with running the environmental assessment because the mega-pipeline crosses an international boundary with Canada.  President Obama must decide if this pipeline is in the national interest.

Why Keystone is a big big deal. The administration’s Keystone XL decision represents a pivotal moment in the direction of energy policy for the nation because approving the pipeline for one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet will do nothing to move the nation to a cleaner, less-polluting, less carbon-intensive future.  Quite the opposite, Keystone XL’s dirty tar sands could ‘crowd out’ rapidly growing markets for renewable energy like wind and solar power. It will lock in more dependence on imported oil and metastasize the destruction of natural resources already well underway in Canada’s boreal forests.

Read more

by Robin Webster, via Carbon Brief

Shale gas has received the official nod — David Cameron told an influential committee of MPs last night that there is a “gas revolution taking place across the world” and “I want us to be part of that revolution”. But the government’s support for shale gas has also been criticised over the past few days by experts who have labelled it ” misleading and dangerous” and “categorically and mathematically” incompatible with the government’s climate change targets.

The arguments over shale – often repeated in media coverage of the issue – seem to boil down to three key questions. We take a look at them.

1. How much shale gas is there in the UK?

In 2011, the British Geological Survey (BGS) estimated the UK has 150 billion cubic metres of shale gas reserves – that’s about two years of current UK gas consumption. It’s also around 5.3 trillion cubic feet, if we’ve got our conversion right. But then oil and gas company Cuadrilla announced that it had discovered 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas under Lancashire, near Blackpool.

This is obviously a much larger amount. How can the two figures be compared? It’s important first of all to note that the BGS figure refers to reserves – the amount of shale gas it believes can be extracted once economic and political limitations are taken into account.

Cuadrilla’s figure refers to the total amount it believes is in the ground, of which it might be possible to extract about 10 to 20 per cent. If correct, Cuadrilla’s find could still be globally significant.

The BGS numbers are also about to be updated. The BGS has been commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to make a thorough assessment of the onshore shale gas resource across the whole of the UK. It’s due to be launched in the New Year, but last Saturday the Times announced – presumably on the basis of a leaked copy – that the report will:

“…estimate that the 1,000 square kilometres covered by the Bowland Basin to the east of Blackpool contains 300 trillion cubic feet of gas, equivalent to 17 times the remaining known reserves in the North Sea.”

This seems to be a surprise to the BGS however. A press spokesperson told us yesterday that its assessment has not yet been released, adding “we don’t know where these figures have come from”. The figures are according to a BGS spokesperson currently a “closely guarded secret” and not even senior managers know what they are. (h/t to Leo Hickman who rang BGS first).

This is all second guessing and none of this really tells us what the BGS have concluded. But rumours have been circulating for some time that the number is going to be big. When it is finally released, it will be hailed by advocates of the fuel as proof that the UK has adequate resources to participate in David Cameron’s “shale gas revolution”.

2. Will UK shale gas cut energy prices?

Read more

by Carol Linnitt, via DeSmogBlog

A pipeline safety review conducted by the Alberta government last summer was done with the oil and gas industry’s interests in mind, according to recent documents released to Greenpeace through Freedom of Information legislation. The documents (PDF) show the review, commissioned after a series of back-to-back pipeline incidents across Alberta raised public concern, was coordinated internally between government and industry, and appears to have required industry consent.

Greenpeace campaigner Keith Stewart told the Canadian Press “there’s a difference between talking to industry and asking for their approval.”

Private communications suggest government officials worked behind the scenes to develop a review plan that would please industry.

“It looks like industry got to write the terms for this review,” said Stewart.

The review was commissioned by the Alberta government after a collective of more than 50 prominent environmental, land rights, First Nations and union representatives called upon Premier Alison Redford to initiate an independent review of the province’s pipeline safety. The groups, including the Alberta Surface Rights Group, The Council of Canadians, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace Canada also launched an anonymous oil spill tipline, urging individuals to make rupture and spill information public. The Alberta government does not make such information available on a public database.

Between May and June the pipeline industry suffered three major incidents in Alberta. The first saw 3.5 million liters of oil leaked into muskeg near Rainbow Lake. In June, a tributary of Red Deer River, which provides drinking water to many Albertan communities, was flooded with 475,000 liters of oil from an unused pipeline. Not two weeks later, more than 230,000 liters were spilled from a leaking line near Elk Lake.

In July, Energy Minister Ken Hughes announced a review of the province’s pipeline infrastructure safety would be conducted by a third party contracted by the provincial regulator, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB).

However, documents show high-profile meetings took place with major industry players before the minister’s announcement.

Emails show Minister Hughes invited 14 pipeline CEOs, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada’s most powerful oil and gas industry lobby group, and the Small Producers and Explorers Association of Canada.

His invitation read: “As you know, the industry operates under world-leading regulatory regime, and has a strong and improving safety record. Some recent incidents and ongoing media attention about energy and environmental issues have given us all the opportunity to reflect not just on how we ensure safety, but also on how we communicate our safety commitment. With this in mind, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you.”

Read more

There’s another showdown between the White House and Congress — this one over disaster relief funds for communities hit by Superstorm Sandy.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has unveiled a new $60.4 billion bill that would help pay for recovery efforts after Sandy. The funding request is part of an existing military and veterans affairs bill, thus allowing the House and Senate to consider the bill at the same time. However, Republicans in both chambers say the President and Democrats have not provided enough evidence that the full $60 billion is needed.

“Can I verbalize that stinky look on my face?” asked Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) earlier this week, as he talked about the bill.

One House aide suggested that Congress “wait a few months” before deploying the emergency funds. From The Hill:

“It wasn’t an official bill request … it didn’t have the justifying documents,” a House aide said. “They said they did not have time to complete the justification … why don’t we wait a few months so they can do that?”

GOP aides are researching whether specific requests for billions in aid across a variety of agencies are needed. Their work could take into next week.

Democrats said the GOP complaints were without merit.

Matt Dennis, a spokesman for incoming House Appropriations ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said that the request is “entirely typical of justifications associated with emergency requests, which by definition cannot wait a few months.”

“Homeowners, families, and small businesses cannot wait a few months for Congress to respond to severe need created by Sandy,” he said. “They need help now.”

The biggest pieces of the Sandy relief bill feature $17 billion for housing development and $11 billion for transportation fixes. It also includes nearly $10 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program. The $60.4 billion is $20 billion less than what governors were asking.

One of the big hangups is how to pay for the relief. Many Republicans are threatening to block disaster funds unless they are offset elsewhere in the budget.

Another important factor — one that is not getting much play in the current showdown over recovery spending — is whether funds would be used for climate resiliency. The Sandy recovery bill does allude to climate change, but only loosely: “In carrying out activities funded by this title that involve repairing, rebuilding, or restoring infrastructure and restoring land, project sponsors shall consider, where appropriate, the increased risks and vulnerabilities associated with future extreme weather events, sea level rise and coastal flooding.”

Major news companies have been giving a platform for fossil fuel-backed “experts” to pen arguments against clean energy without disclosing the author’s connections to the industry, a new study from the Checks and Balances project finds.

Across sixty major news outlets, in the course of five years, the group found that major publications only disclosed oil industry ties six percent of the time, even when the authors represented organizations that receive hundreds of thousands — sometimes millions — of dollars from oil big wigs like the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

Often times, papers identified the authors by other terms, including “conservative” or “libertarian,” but without any disclosure of the funders:

The conservative Heritage Foundation topped the list of organizations that benefited from this lack of disclosure, with 277 articles about energy in major publications. And some publications proved worse at disclosure than others. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, never mentioned its authors’ connections. The New York Times did a better job of making such connections known:

An absence of coverage on climate issues has been a consistent issue in the media. In 2010, for example, coverage of climate change by major papers dropped significantly; the same thing happened again in 2011. In fact, as the Arctic shed a volume of ice the size of Canada and Texas combined this summer, television news outlets covered Paul Ryan’s workout routine three times more than global warming.

Coverage of the issue has been insufficient and this study just adds more ammunition to the argument that major publications are disregarding responsible journalism on one of the biggest issues of the century.

The federal government is stepping up its efforts to kick-start the offshore wind industry by awarding $28 million in grants to seven projects that are developing varying kinds of power-generation technology. [New York Times]

The Upper Colorado River Basin — including Summit County — could see deficits in its compact obligation to deliver water downstream as often as once every five years by 2040, according to a massive new Bureau of Reclamation study released this week. [Summit County Citizens News]

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is warning that without an operational fleet of polar-orbiting satellites, the European model would have missed a key forecast and predicted that Sandy would have headed out to sea well east of New Jersey. [Climate Central]

Under certain warming forecasts, more than half of the 103 ski resorts in the Northeast will not be able to maintain a 100-day season by 2039. [New York Times]

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Wednesday that he is optimistic enough Republicans will rally behind his renewable-energy financing bill to get it passed next Congress. [The Hill]

Conservative Bob Inglis blames his efforts to combat global warming for the intra-Republican challenge that cost him his South Carolina congressional seat in 2010. Since the loss, he has traveled the nation making the case to students and grassroots Republican activists that a carbon tax is both good policy and politics. [Bloomberg]

China and the US are to be the clear focus of the next year of climate change negotiations, following a hard-fought climate conference that ended in Doha on Saturday night. [Guardian]

An advisor to the Polish government says the country should keep using its coal for decades to come, despite a European Union policy of replacing the polluting fossil fuel with cleaner sources. [Washington Post]