Narrated by David Attenborough. Frozen Planet takes you on the ultimate polar expedition. This landmark series brings to the screen the frozen wildernesses of the Arctic and Antarctic as you have never seen them before, and may never see them again...
Next episode - Sun 23 Dec 06:30 PM [ NY 2:30am, -14h now ]
Spring is explored as the sun returns life to both Poles. Landscapes that had been locked in darkness for three months are suddenly bathed in light. Hibernating residents begin to wake, and the first migrants start arriving.
The great Arctic cyclone of August 2012 15 DEC 2012 Abstract On 2 August 2012 a dramatic storm formed over Siberia, moved into the Arctic, and died in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on 14 August. During its lifetime its central pressure dropped to 966 hPa [28.53"], leading it to be dubbed ‘The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012’. This cyclone occurred during a period when the sea ice extent was on the way to reaching a new satellite-era low, and its intense behavior was related to baroclinicity and a tropopause polar vortex. The pressure of the storm was the lowest of all Arctic August storms over our record starting in 1979, and the system was also the most extreme when a combination of key cyclone properties was considered. Even though, climatologically, summer is a ‘quiet’ time in the Arctic, when compared with all Arctic storms across the period it came in as the 13th most extreme storm, warranting the attribution of ‘Great’. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054259/abstract
An unusually warm March left the soil dried out in much of the country, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during what became the warmest July on record. Parched corn in Paola, Kan. Steve Hebert for The New York Times
Coney Island in March. Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS Published: January 8, 2013
The numbers [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ ; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13 ] are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the Corn Belt and a huge storm that caused broad devastation in the Middle Atlantic States, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.
If that does not sound sufficiently impressive, consider that 34,008 daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 record lows, according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel [ http://www.weather.com/ ] meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.
That ratio, which was roughly in balance as recently as the 1970s, has been out of whack for decades as the country has warmed, but never by as much as it was last year.
“The heat was remarkable,” said Jake Crouch, a scientist with the National Climatic Data Center [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ ] in Asheville, N.C., which released the official climate compilation on Tuesday. “It was prolonged. That we beat the record by one degree is quite a big deal.”
Scientists said that natural variability almost certainly played a role in last year’s extreme heat and drought. But many of them expressed doubt that such a striking new record would have been set without the backdrop of global warming [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/series/temperaturerising/index.html ] caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. And they warned that 2012 was probably a foretaste of things to come, as continuing warming makes heat extremes more likely.
Even so, the last year’s record for the United States is not expected to translate into a global temperature record when figures are released in the coming weeks. The year featured a La Niña [ http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina.html ] weather pattern, which tends to cool the global climate over all, and scientists expect it to be the world’s eighth- or ninth-warmest year on record.
Assuming that prediction holds up, it will mean that the 10 warmest years on record all fell within the past 15 years, a measure of how much the planet has warmed. Nobody who is under 28 has lived through a month of global temperatures that fell below the 20th-century average, because the last such month was February 1985.
Last year’s weather in the United States began with an unusually warm winter, with relatively little snow across much of the country, followed by a March that was so hot that trees burst into bloom and swimming pools opened early. The soil dried out in the March heat, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during the warmest July on record.
Extensive records covering the lower 48 states go back to 1895; Alaska and Hawaii have shorter records and are generally not included in long-term climate comparisons for that reason.
Mr. Crouch pointed out that until last year, the coldest year in the historical record for the lower 48 states, 1917, was separated from the warmest year, 1998, by only 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit. That is why the 2012 record, and its one degree increase over 1998, strikes climatologists as so unusual.
“We’re taking quite a large step above what the period of record has shown for the contiguous United States,” Mr. Crouch said.
In addition to being the nation’s warmest year, 2012 turned out to be the second-worst on a measure called the Climate Extremes Index [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/ ], surpassed only by 1998.
Experts are still counting, but so far 11 disasters in 2012 have exceeded a threshold of $1 billion in damages, including several tornado outbreaks; Hurricane Isaac, which hit the Gulf Coast in August, and, late in the year, Hurricane Sandy [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hurricanes_and_tropical_storms/index.html ], which caused damage likely to exceed $60 billion in nearly half the states, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region.
Among those big disasters was one bearing a label many people had never heard before: the derecho [ http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/events/svrwx_20120629/ ], a line of severe, fast-moving thunderstorms that struck central and eastern parts of the country starting on June 29, killing more than 20 people, toppling trees and knocking out power for millions of households.
For people who escaped both the derecho and Hurricane Sandy relatively unscathed, the year may be remembered most for the sheer breadth and oppressiveness of the summer heat wave. By the calculations of the climatic data center, a third of the nation’s population experienced 10 or more days of summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Among the cities that set temperature records in 2012 were Nashville; Athens, Ga.; and Cairo, Ill., all of which hit 109 degrees on June 29; Greenville, S.C., which hit 107 degrees on July 1; and Lamar, Colo., which hit 112 degrees on June 27.
With the end of the growing season, coverage of the drought has waned, but the drought itself has not. Mr. Crouch pointed out that at the beginning of January, 61 percent of the country was still in moderate to severe drought conditions. “I foresee that it’s going to be a big story moving forward in 2013,” he said.
EPA's Fracking Study May Dodge Water Contamination Frequency Issue
In this July 27, 2011 file photo, a crane boom towers over the pumps and storage bins where the hydraulic fracturing process in the Marcellus Shale layer to release natural gas was underway at a Range Resources site in Claysville, Pa.
By By KEVIN BEGOS Posted: 01/06/2013 11:19 am EST | Updated: 01/07/2013 1:24 am EST
PITTSBURGH (AP) — An ongoing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study on natural gas drilling and its potential for groundwater contamination has gotten tentative praise so far from both industry and environmental groups.
Glenn Paulson, the EPA's science adviser, describes the project as "one of the most aggressive public outreach programs in EPA history."
The final report won't come out until late 2014. But a 275-page progress report was released in December and, for all its details, shows that the EPA doesn't plan to address one contentious issue — how often drinking water contamination might occur.
Congress ordered the EPA to study the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which entails blasting a mixture of water, sand and hazardous chemicals at underground shale to release the gas or oil captured in the rock.
As a gas rush surged in parts of the Marcellus Shale region that underlies Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia concerns arose for the watershed that provides drinking water for 17 million people from Philadelphia to New York City.
For the study, the EPA is talking to experts from the industry, the environmental community, and universities. It's conducting its own research and using federal supercomputers to analyze the possibility of contamination.
In the report, the EPA describes what it is and isn't studying. The agency also indicates its final report won't provide a measurement of the likelihood of contamination — for example, once every 100,000 wells or once every 1,000.
The industry and many federal and state officials say fracking is safe when done properly, but environmental groups and some scientists contend the risk of contamination is too great.
Earthworks, an environmental group based in Washington, said it welcomes the EPA study but has concerns with plans not to include some probability of groundwater contamination in the final report.
The EPA had planned to do both computer simulations of water contamination and actual field tests at drilling sites. But the agency hasn't found a drilling company to partner with to test groundwater around a drilling site. That leaves the computer simulations. But the EPA said those won't be able to address the likelihood of contamination "occurring during actual field operations."
"In its inability to find a single company willing to test water quality before and after drilling and fracking, the EPA is being thwarted in perhaps the most important part of its study of fracking's impacts," Earthworks said in a statement.
"Computer simulations are not enough," Alan Septoff, a spokesman for Earthworks, said.
He said the EPA study and any future studies should consider the likelihood of water contamination.
The EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The progress report says the EPA is studying the possible impact on drinking water at several stages of the fracking process: when water is drawn from reservoirs or underground sources and used for fracking; when a chemical mix is injected into the ground to break up rock; when wastewater from fracking is disposed of; how the drilling wells and wastewater-storage wells are constructed; and the potential for toxic fluids to migrate from deep underground to near-surface drinking water supplies.
The American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby based in Washington, said in a statement that the progress report "is just the first step in a multi-year research study."
"More collaboration, continued transparency and stakeholder involvement are essential elements for any scientifically sound study, and we hope that the rest of this process remains open and any data released has the necessary context," API policy adviser Stephanie Meadows said.
Despite its concerns, Earthworks described the EPA study as a positive step.
"It represents a step towards EPA's first real scientific inquiry into the safety of fracking," the group said.
*
Online:
EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/
Exports of American Natural Gas May Fall Short of High Hopes
Cheniere Energy is building a facility for liquefied natural gas in Cameron Parish, La. It is the first to secure an export license. Michael Stravato for The New York Times
A ship carrying imported liquefied natural gas arrives at a terminal in Hackberry, La. Sempra Energy
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS Published: January 4, 2013
HOUSTON — Only five years ago, several giant natural gas [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/natural-gas/index.html ] import terminals were built to satisfy the energy needs of a country hungry for fuels. But the billion-dollar terminals were obsolete even before the concrete was dry as an unexpected drilling boom in new shale fields from Pennsylvania to Texas produced a glut of cheap domestic natural gas.
Now, the same companies that had such high hopes for imports are proposing to salvage those white elephants by spending billions more to convert them into terminals to export some of the nation’s extra gas to Asia and Europe, where gas is roughly triple the American price.
Just like last time, some of the costly ventures could turn out to be poor investments.
Countries around the world are importing drilling expertise and equipment in hopes of cracking open their own gas reserves through the same techniques of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that unleashed shale gas production in the United States. Demand for American gas — which would be shipped in a condensed form called liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G. — could easily taper off by the time the new export terminals really get going, some energy specialists say.
“It will be easier to export the technology for extracting shale gas than exporting actual gas,” said Jay Hakes, former administrator of the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration. “I know the pitch about our price differentials will justify the high costs of L.N.G. We will see. Gas by pipeline is a good deal. L.N.G.? Not so clear.”
Even the terminal operators acknowledge that probably only a lucky few companies will export gas because it can cost $7 billion or more to build a terminal, and then only after a rigorous federal regulatory permitting process. The exploratory process to find a suitable site for a new terminal alone can take a year and cost $100 million, operators say, and financing can be secured only once long-term purchase agreements — 20 years or more — are reached with foreign buyers.
“It’s a monumental effort to put a deal together like this, and you need well-heeled partners,” said Mark A. Snell, president of Sempra Energy [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/sempra_energy/index.html ], which is based in San Diego and is applying for permits to turn around a Hackberry, La., import terminal for export. “There are only a handful of people who can do this kind of thing.”
At least 15 proposed terminal projects have filed regulatory applications to export gas, and if all were approved, they could export more than 25 billion cubic feet a day, equivalent to more than a third of domestically consumed natural gas.
Environmental advocates say that kind of surge in demand would produce a frenzy of shale drilling dependent on hydraulic fracturing of hard rocks, an industrial method they say endangers local water supplies and pollutes the air. Dow Chemical [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/dow_chemical_company/index.html ], a big user of natural gas, and some other manufacturers express concerns that an export boom could threaten to raise natural gas prices for factories and consumers and, ultimately, kill jobs.
Opponents are already lobbying the Obama administration to reject most of the planned terminals, and protests have already occurred. Sempra, Exxon Mobil [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/exxon_mobil_corporation/index.html ], Cheniere Energy [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/cheniere-energy-inc/index.html ] and others have already built import terminals on the Gulf of Mexico. With docking facilities and giant gas tanks already built on land they had acquired and received permits for, they have a huge advantage over companies that have not yet built terminals. Cheniere, the only company to secure an export license, already has entered long-term purchase agreements for its L.N.G., and several other companies are only a few steps behind.
Dominion Power, which operates a nearly idle import terminal near Cove Point on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, is also expected to proceed with a conversion to exports, since it is strategically located near the mid-Atlantic gas fields of the Marcellus Shale.
“You have got to be able to change, adapt as changes take place in the world,” said Michael E. Gardner, manager of the Cove Point plant.
The companies with import terminals now wanting to export won a victory in December when an Energy Department report said exports of L.N.G. could produce $30 billion a year in export earnings without driving up domestic gas prices significantly.
Many energy specialists expect the Obama administration to approve several export license applications in the next couple of years, and exports could begin as soon as 2015.
If the American terminals could be built tomorrow, they would have a perfect market opportunity. The production glut in the United States has reduced natural gas prices in this country by more than two-thirds since 2008.
Gas prices in most other places around the world are much higher because they are linked to oil, which has remained comparatively expensive. Gas prices in the United States are around $3.30 per thousand cubic feet, compared with $10 to $11 in Europe and over $15 in Asia.
But analysts say that the price spread could quickly shrink as a host of factors converge. Gas prices in the United States will face upward pressure as exports rise, electric utilities switch to gas-fired plants from coal, and companies use more natural gas in manufacturing and for fleet vehicles.
“With rising U.S. gas prices, U.S. L.N.G. could be priced out of the market,” said Noel Tomnay, head of global gas research at the consultancy Wood Mackenzie. “Even without L.N.G. exports, the price of gas will go up.”
The indexing of Asian and European gas to oil prices is beginning to erode. At the same time, huge natural gas pipelines are being built around Asia to supply China, while new gas finds around Australia, East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean are likely to flood the markets with more L.N.G. Russia, a major global gas producer, is also moving aggressively to protect its markets.
And the cost of shipping and processing liquefied gas will cut into American suppliers’ competitiveness.
Nikos Tsafos, a gas analyst at PFC Energy, said if the current gas price of slightly less than $3.30 per thousand cubic feet rose to $6, “by the time it gets to Asia, it’s double that price and that means there is no arbitrage.” The biggest threat, over the long term, is the spread of the American shale boom overseas. The United States has a big lead; shale drilling has been slow to get started in Europe, South Africa and South America because of environmental concerns, water shortages and political obstacles.
But China, which potentially has more shale resources than the United States, is poised for development. And Poland, Britain and Argentina are moving forward with more shale drilling.
Resistance from environmental groups like the Sierra Club could help stop some export projects, especially outside the Gulf of Mexico region, which has long been comfortable with the oil and gas industry. And manufacturers like Dow Chemical are campaigning against unfettered exports to keep their costs down.
Over all, these factors will make it challenging for export projects to raise enough financing. L.N.G. terminal developers note that more than 20 import terminals proposed a decade ago were never built because of local opposition or lack of government permits and financing.
“Can all these projects get financed? That’s a good question,” said Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/shell_royal_dutch_plc/index.html ] Company, which is looking at various possible L.N.G. terminal sites to invest in. “The outcome of this is not likely to be unlimited L.N.G. exports.”
Charif Souki, Cheniere’s chief executive, predicted that by 2018, the country would manage to export only one billion to two billion cubic feet of gas a day, or roughly 2 percent of current domestic consumption. In 10 years, after two to four projects have received permits and have been built, he said he expected exports to grow to three billion to five billion cubic feet a day. The total global production of L.N.G. is about 40 billion cubic feet a day, and growing rapidly.
George Biltz, Dow Chemical’s vice president for energy and climate change, said that exports that come near Mr. Souki’s projections would ease Dow’s concerns. “That is a range that I think will maintain a competitive advantage for the United States,” he said.
Eric Lipton contributed reporting from Washington.
For the study, financed by the Canadian government, the researchers set out to develop a historical record of the contamination, analyzing sediment dating back about 50 years from six small and shallow lakes north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, the center of the oil sands industry. Layers of the sediment were tested for deposits of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [ http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pahs.pdf ], or PAHs, groups of chemicals associated with oil that in many cases have been found [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469515/ ] to cause cancer in humans after long-term exposure.
The researchers found that to the contrary, the levels of those deposits have been steadily rising since large-scale oil sands production began in 1978.
Samples from one test site, the paper said, now show 2.5 to 23 times more PAHs in current sediment than in layers dating back to around 1960.
“We’re not saying these are poisonous ponds,” Professor Smol said. “But it’s going to get worse. It’s not too late but the trend is not looking good.” He said that the wilderness lakes studied by the group were now contaminated as much as lakes in urban centers.
Battles are also under way over the proposed construction of the Keystone XL [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pipeline/index.html ] pipeline, which would move the oil down through the western United States and down to refineries along the Gulf Coast, or an alternative pipeline that would transport the oil from landlocked Alberta to British Columbia for export to Asia.
“Now we have the smoking gun,” Professor Smol said.
He said he was not surprised that the analysis found a rise in PAH deposits after the industrial development of the oil sands, “but we needed the data.” He said he Hs not entirely expected, however, to observe the effect at the most remote test site, a lake that is about 50 miles to the north.
Asked about the study, Adam Sweet, a spokesman for Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, emphasized in an e-mail that with the exception of one lake very close to the oil sands, the levels of contaminants measured by the researchers “did not exceed Canadian guidelines and were low compared to urban areas.”
He added that an environmental monitoring program [ ] for the region announced last February 2012 was put into effect “to address the very concerns raised by such studies” and to “provide an improved understanding of the long-term cumulative effects of oil sands development.”
Earlier research has suggested several different ways that the chemicals could spread. Most oil sand production involve large-scale open-bit mining. The chemicals may become wind-borne when giant excavators dig them up and then deposit them into 400-ton dump trucks.
Upgraders at some oil sands projects that separate the oil bitumen from its surrounding sand are believed to emit PAHs. And some scientists believe that vast ponds holding wastewater from that upgrading and from other oil sand processes may be leaking PAHs and other chemicals into downstream bodies of water.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
