The media are debating if the decrease in  Arctic ice  is related to this winter’s cold weather in Germany. This post discusses the most recent current research about this including the most important figures from relevant studies.

Translated from an article by Stefan Rahmstorf [] are translation notes via Rabett Run

First, what does the unusual temperature distribution observed this March actually look like? Here is a map showing the data (up to and including March 25, NCEP / NCAR data plotted with KNMI Climate Explorer):

Arctic sea ice

Let us now discuss the Arctic sea ice.  The summer minimum in September set a new record low, but also at the recent winter maximum there was unusually little ice (ranking 6th lowest – the ten years with the lowest ice extent were all in the last decade). The ice cover in the Barents sea was particularly low this winter.  All in all until March the deficit was  about the size of Germany compared  to the long-term average.

Is there a connection with the winter weather?  Does the shrinking ice cover influence the atmospheric circulation, because the open ocean strongly heats the Arctic atmosphere from below?  (The water is much warmer than the overlying cold polar air.) Did the resulting evaporation of sea water moisten the air and thus lead to more snow? These questions have been investigated by several studies in recent years.
Read more

Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted 57-41 to kill a “drill-baby-drill” amendment by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) to the transportation bill. His amendment, which would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, bypassed the administration to approve construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, opened practically the entire coast of the United States to drilling, and mandated other oil and gas exploration, fell 19 votes shy of the 60 required. The amendment also contained provisions to extend tax cuts.

Fossil-friendly Democratic senators Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV), and Claire McCaskill (MO) joined with 38 Republicans to support the measure.

An unusual combination of seven Republicans opposed the measure, along with 50 members of the Democratic caucus. Three — Sens. Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), and Olympia Snowe (ME) — represent Democratic-leaning New England states (both Snowe and Collins have previously opposed ANWR drilling).

The unfunded costs of the tax incentives in the bill likely scared off the four Republicans voting no — Sens. Bob Corker (TN), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), Marco Rubio (FL) — all politicians who have criticized federal government spending. Like the New England senators, Rubio and DeMint also represent coastal states with vibrant tourism industries and cultures dependent on the beauty of their coastlines, which could be permanently crippled by offshore drilling.

In a statement, Corker said, “Even though I strongly support the Keystone pipeline, having voted for it various times in the past, I could not support this amendment because it violates the Budget Control Act enacted last year.”

It is no surprise that Pat Roberts would push a bill so beneficial to dirty energy companies — after all, his top source of campaign money since 1989 has been Koch Industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, with more than $130,000 in individual and PAC contributions.

By Don Shelby, in a re-post

At a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on the dangers of drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) exploded with rage. The hearing, with witnesses requested by the Democratic minority, was scheduled by Republicans for Friday afternoon. “I call it garbage, Dr. Rice,” Young said, addressing his comments to Dr. Douglas Brinkley, a historian at Rice University. When Brinkley corrected his name, Young grew even more apoplectic, saying, “I can call you anything I want if you sit in that chair.”

YOUNG: If you ever want want to see an exercise in futility … That side has already made up its mind and this side has already made up its mind. I call it garbage, Dr. Rice, it comes from the mouth –

BRINKLEY: It’s Dr. Brinkley. Rice is a university –

YOUNG: Well, okay, I can call you anything I want if you sit in that chair. You just be quiet! You be quiet!

Watch it:

After Young’s irate outburst, Committee chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) castigated Dr. Brinkley for interrupting the Alaska congressman and disrupting the “comity” of the hearing.

“The Arctic plain is really nothing,” Young continued, calling Dr. Brinkley “elitist.” “You can go on all the pontifigurds you want . . . I’m really pissed.”

“Some people love money more than their homeland or where they live,” Dr. Brinkley said later, rebuking Young for his hatred of the undrilled Alaskan wilderness.

Subscribe to ThinkProgress Green.

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals will debate a proposal to jump start oil shale production, which could be one of the dirtiest forms of energy in existence if it were to become viable. Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn’s (R-CO) bill would codify midnight regulations on oil shale that the Bush administration passed just as it was leaving office in early 2009.

You’re not alone if you haven’t heard of oil shale, which should not be confused with the viable energy producer “shale oil.” In order to develop the oil shale, a type of rock, power plants must be built to heat the rock up to nearly 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and produce crude oil that still needs to be refined. This takes a large amount of energy and money, as well as 3-5 barrels of water per barrel of oil produced, a dangerous issue in the parched West.

Politicians and oil companies have extolled the virtue of this “new” form of energy since the early 1900s, yet not a single barrel of oil from oil shale has been commercially sold. That does not stop today’s politicians and oil CEOs from using the same language as their decades old predecessors. In a field hearing this summer, the Checks and Balances Project developed a bingo card with old-timey oil shale phrases — all of which but one were used. You can follow along today to see if the same arguments are used yet again (click on the card for a larger version).

Oil companies and proponents of oil shale claim it can “solve our energy crisis,” and Lamborn recently claimed that it is “one of America’s greatest natural resources.” Yet, despite decades of experimentation and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, oil shale has never been produced commercially in the United States. Even the director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research admitted that:

All of the major companies are doing oil shale because they think it’s an interesting and high-potential area, but they’re not in a hurry to make it productive…

Oil companies already have research and development leases on public lands, but they now seeking even more public lands on which to experiment. Lamborn’s bill continues to reward dirty fossil fuel companies for chasing what some have called “the petroleum equivalent of fool’s gold.” Throughout his career, Lamborn has received $126,962 from the oil and gas industry.

On Wednesday, House Natural Resource Committee Republicans held their 20th oversight hearing on how to drill more. In addition to oil shale, todays legislative hearing will feature bills to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to mandate offshore oil and gas lease sales.

Despite the urgent need in many of their home states, House Republicans refuse to provide funding for infrastructure development and blocked the recent piece of President Obama’s jobs act offering $60 billion to rehabilitate America’s roads and bridges. It appears the only way Republicans are prepared to fix America’s crumbling infrastructure is by threatening the environment with domestic drilling. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers (OH) announced the GOP plan Friday to fund all infrastructure with 37.5 percent of drilling revenues earned specifically from opening up the Gulf of Mexico, Virginia’s coast, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil rigs:

On Friday, Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) put meat on the bones by announcing a plan that would require lease sales in areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, among other areas, and lift a congressional ban on oil-and-gas leasing that covers most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The plan includes a lease sale off Virginia’s coast by mid-2012. [...]

Separately, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) introduced legislation that authorizes oil-and-gas leasing in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Stivers insists that removing drilling bans, or “government roadblocks,” will “provide much-needed revenue to help pay for vital infrastructure improvements.” However, as opening up the ANWR to drilling will do little to fill the need for revenue as the Department of Energy noted it’d take at least 10 years to produce any oil from the Arctic. It will only serve to endanger the home of America’s last polar bears and porcupine caribou.

Of course, the Senate Democrats plan to pay for infrastructure with a small surtax on America’s millionaires would actually yield the needed revenue to pay for these “vital infrastructure improvements.” But, as always, the Republicans are dead set against a revenue plan that doesn’t further their special interests agenda. And, as always, it’s done at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Our guest blogger is Emilie Surrusco, Communications Director, Alaska Wilderness League.

At yesterday’s House Natural Resources Committee hearing on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reality was nowhere to be found except for reality TV star “Big Daddy” from the hit show Ice Road Truckers who was called as a Republican witness. That didn’t stop Republicans from questioning the validity of data other than that from the oil industry that they had in front of them. Here’s the full exchange:

John Fleming (R-LA): This was paid for by you say the evil oil money…what was your point in saying it was paid for by the oil industry? I’m looking around here on the dais and I can’t find any of your data. Where is your data, sir?

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters: It’s at the Department of Labor, the EIA [Energy Information Administration], the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey], it’s all from government studies.

Fleming: I don’t see it here.

Other House Republicans, led by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK), regurgitated the same talking points used 10, 20, and 30 years ago to push for drilling in our nation’s last great wilderness place.

Take this quote from a 1995 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The refuge, with its large herds of calving caribou and a range of other natural riches, is a particular target of Republican legislators hoping to tap it for $1.4 billion in deficit-reducing oil-lease revenues.

A review of the facts is necessary when debating drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

- Based on a recent study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, House Republicans claim that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would raise $150-$300 billion in revenues for federal coffers. In fact, any estimates of revenue generated from drilling in the Arctic Refuge are wildly speculative and hugely inflated because no one really knows how much oil is out there.
- With 10 years between leasing and actual production, the money wouldn’t start flowing in time to do anything about our current problems.
- The Alaska Statehood Act mandates that Alaskans get 90 percent of all revenues from drilling in the Arctic Refuge (the oil industry study based its numbers on a 50/50 federal/state split) so those wild revenue estimates continue to shrink. Factor in inflated tax rates, underestimated production costs, unrealistic oil prices, lease prices that are 25 times the current North Slope average and more – and those numbers become inconsequential, in terms of the $1.5 trillion we’re trying to shave from the national debt.
- That oil industry study also claims that Arctic Refuge drilling would create 60,000 jobs in Alaska alone. Yet 16,468 jobs are currently attributed to the oil industry throughout the state of Alaska, and already 95 percent of Alaska’s North Slope is open to drilling. The numbers don’t add up.
- The oil industry’s job growth projection is equally rosy outside the state of Alaska – an increase of 55,000 to 130,000 jobs from Arctic Refuge drilling by 2030. Yet the top five largest oil companies have cut their work force by 11,200 workers in the past five years – despite the fact that domestic oil production is at its highest level in the past seven years and those five companies are making record profits.

With no significant job or revenue growth, what does Arctic Refuge drilling do for America? It destroys a place that millions of us have fought to protect for the past 50 years while filling the pockets of those fantastically wealthy oil companies. Luckily, there is an alternative. House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Ed Markey (D-MA) called for cutting the $43 billion in taxpayer handouts to oil companies over the next 10 years, ending royalty-free drilling on public lands offshore in the Gulf of Mexico for another $9.5 billion over the next 10 years, and repealing the royalty giveaway to Gulf states for another $1.9 billion. As he said:

All told, over the next 10 years these Democratic ideas would reduce our deficit 20 times as much as opening up the Arctic Refuge to drilling. To put it in perspective, if these Democratic ideas were the height of the Empire State Building, the Republican plan to drill in the Refuge would occupy only the first five floors.

An investigation from a Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, shows that Royal Dutch Shell has been censured for breaking safety rules 25 times in six years, giving it the second-worst safety record in the United Kingdom.

The piece was released days after Shell closed a pipeline leak in the North Sea that dumped about 218 tons of oil into the water – the worst spill in the UK since 2000. It also comes as Shell seeks to drill exploratory wells off the Arctic coast next summer.

The list of censures reported by the Sunday Herald is wide-ranging:

The British oil multinational has been prosecuted, fined and formally reprimanded for repeatedly failing to maintain pipelines and other vital equipment in the North Sea, for failing to report a dangerous incident, and for failing to protect workers from hazardous chemicals.

The revelations, from records held by the Government’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE), have led to renewed criticism of Shell in the wake of last week’s oil leak from a pipeline to the Gannet Alpha platform 112 miles east of Aberdeen. The company has been slammed for failing to be open about the leak, which it claimed to have sealed on Friday.

According to the HSE, which released the documents to the Herald, Shell has faced more legal prosecutions for safety and environmental transgressions than any other major oil company. Only a Danish company, Maersk, has received more warnings.

Shell also had one of the worst records for offshore spills in the UK, according to HSE documents:

Read more