Month: May 2022

Categories
Ignored Warnings Scientists United States of America

May 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

On this day. May 31, 1977

Columbia University geologist Wallace S. Broecker May 31 said increased reliance on coal for energy might over the next 50 years raise the average temperature on the earth by four degrees fahrenheit. Broecker’s prediction rested on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: CO2 was transparent to incoming sunlight, “but somewhat opaque to outgoing earthlight” (sunlight reflected back out into space, where its heat would be dissipated). Carbon dioxide was produced by coal combustion; burning one ton of coal produced three tons of CO2.

“Coal impact on climate questioned” Facts on File World News Digest July 2, 1977

Four degrees Fahrenheit is just over two degrees Celsius. So, Broecker was wrong, but probably only by a couple of decades…

Broecker had been the first scientist to use the phrase “global warming” in the title of a scientific article.  He raised the alarm, kept raising the alarm (see here for his 1980 letter to Democratic senator Paul Tsongas).

Why this matters. 

Again, we knew, long before 1988. But it’s a far-off threat, of which we know little, so, you know, life goes on.

What happened next?

We kept on pretending there wasn’t really a problem – or rather, our lords and masters did. Some of us started panicking.

Categories
Cultural responses

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

On this day, 31 May, 1996, with the release of the film “The Arrival” the rocket scientist known as Charlie Sheen uncovered a dastardly alien plot to [spoiler alert] accelerate global warming.

No, seriously, spoilers.

The Arrival (1996 film) - Wikipedia

My favourite scene by far – Charlie confronts his erstwhile boss in the “Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence” project (obvs the aliens – actually lizards in skin suits – would infiltrate humanity’s advance warning system, to make sure they were not detected.

I don’t have the IMDb to hand, so I am paraphrasing.

Charlie: I have figured it out – you are changing the Earth’s climate with your fiendish alien technology. It’s totally immoral!

Baddie (played by Ron Silver): We are merely accelerating a process that your species started, that you are fully aware of, and are too lazy or stupid to stop. Where’s the immorality?

(Compare Theodore Sturgeon’s short story, “Occam’s Scalpel”)

Why this matters. 

There have been interesting cultural responses for a long time. This relatively early one is a goodie.

What happened next?

Sheen went off the deep end.

Silver went off the deep end after 911.

Categories
Australia Cultural responses United States of America

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

On this day, May 30, 1990, Australian band “Midnight Oil” held an impromptu concert in New York, outside Exxon’s HQ. You can see the footage here

Exxon were villain du jour because of a certain carelessness the previous spring in Alaska.

We didn’t know then, but Exxon already had a solid ten years of climate knowledge under its belt – they knew that their product would wreck the planet, but why, erm, rock the boat?

You might also like this song, by “Max Q”

Why this matters. 

Culturally, we can resist.  Economically, persistently, strategically? Not so easy.

What happened next?

Midnight Oil kept burning.  They stopped while Peter Garrett, lead singer tried to change the system from within.  Have since resumed.


Exxon?  Oh, Exxon kept up their boundless love and generosity for future generations by, you know, funding denialist outfits, getting IPCC chairs sacked – the usual.

Categories
Science Scientists

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

On this day, May 29, 1969, Dave Keeling gave an inaugural lecture. Its title –

“A Chemist Thinks About the Future”

I could quote for hours.

“Nevertheless, no atmospheric scientist doubts that a sufficiently large change in atmospheric carbon dioxide would change the climate: we need only compare our atmosphere with the very hot carbon dioxide-laden atmosphere of Venus to guess the consequences of unrestricted carbon dioxide increase. The question is: how much before it matters? “

The whole thing is worth a read- the citation is

Charles D. Keeling PhD (1970) A Chemist Thinks About the Future, Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal, 20:6, 764-777, DOI: 10.1080/00039896.1970.10665656
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1970.10665656

From the end (spoilers!) Keeling writes this

“Today we hold widely divergent views concerning possible peril. Have you noticed that practically all master plans do not project beyond the year 2000 AD? Our college students, however, today expect or hope to live beyond that date, and I predict that they will be the first generation to feel such strong concern for man’s future that they will discover means of effective action. This action may be less pleasant and rational than the corrective measures that we promote today, but 30 years from now, if present trends are a sign, mankind’s world will be in greater immediate danger than it is today. Immediate corrective measures, if such exist, will be closer at hand. If the human race survives into the 21st century with the vast population increase that now seems inevitable, the people living then, in addition to their other troubles, may face the threat of climatic change brought about by an uncontrolled increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.”

(Keeling, 1970: 776-7)


Btw, have you noticed that practically all of today’s master plans do not project beyond the year 2050 AD?

This graphic is darkly amusing –

We’re now at 420ppm, not 320. So it goes.

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, particularly, any more than any blog post on this site does. But it keeps me off the streets, so there’s that.

What happened next?

Keeling kept on counting.

The thing he kept counting kept climbing.

And here we are.

[but of course, beware the fetishization of carbon dioxide!]

Categories
International Geophysical Year Science Scientists

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

On this day, 28 May 1956, Time magazine ran an article with the following text:

“Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate… “Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earth’s CO2 and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO2 blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.” –

“One Big Greenhouse,” Time magazine, May 28, 1956.

Why this matters

It’s nice context for the “puzzle” Roger Revelle asked Charles Keeling to look at.

What happened next?

Revelle hired Keeling (check out Joshua Wienberg’s “The next 100 years” for more about this.

The Keeling Curve was born.

“We” ignored it.

The end.

Categories
Australia

May 27, 1996 – Not just a river in Egypt – denial in #Australia, organised, ramifying…

On this day, May 1996, a climate denialist professor gave a speech to fellow climate denialists in Australia.

Climate denial outfits like the IPA and Tasman Institute had been inviting various (US) climate denialists to Australia for speaking tours (this was a repertoire that would continue).  They’d started in the early 1990s and, of course, kept going.

“On 27 May 1996, Prof Patrick Michaels delivered a lively and entertaining presentation, outlining empirical difficulties with the Enhanced Greenhouse Global Warming Hypothesis. Through Tasman, Prof. Michaels also published an article on greenhouse issues in the Australian Financial Review of 30 May 1996. The article was subsequently cited by Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fisher”.

Tasman Institute 1996 Annual Review

Why this matters. 

You can see in that quote the sequence – get someone over on a speaking tour. Lean on your mates in the media (with whom you are in a symbiotic relationship anyway) to get an opinion piece in a prestigious newspaper.  THEN get one of your parliamentary goons (in this case Deputy Prime Minister – how cool is that?) to mention it in parliament.

All the way along, you’re creating more “credibility” and heft for your views, which are aimed at creating doubt, delay, uncertainty, so your friends can keep raking in the big bucks.

What happened next?

The denial campaigns continued.  Australia extorted an extremely sweet deal at the Kyoto COP in December 1997, and still didn’t ratify it.

And the carbon dioxide? Oh, it accumulated…

Categories
Australia

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes

On this day, May 26, 1994, the Australian Liberal Party’s spokesperson on foreign affairs offered an (unintentionally prophetic) warning about future climate diplomacy.

“The concern of industry groups that Australia might similarly be forced into a consensus on climate change was echoed yesterday by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock. He said there was a danger Australia’s stance that it would not implement measures that would damage its trade competitiveness unless other greenhouse gas producers did likewise could become increasingly devoid of substance.” Gill, P. 1994 Industry voices greenhouse fears. Australian Financial Review, 27 May,

The context was that Australia had ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 1992 (Prime Minister Paul Keating loathed greenies, but I think just couldn’t be bothered NOT to ratify).  It was by May 1994 clear that there would be a global meeting soon at which rich countries would be expected to announce not just stabilisation of emissions targets, but actual cuts.  Australia did not want this (who would they sell all their coal to, how would they power a currently coal-based energy system?).

Industry was already mobilising by May 1994, and telling their natural allies, the Liberal Party, what they wanted…

[The other context is that the Liberals felt that they’d had the 1990 Federal election stolen from them by nefarious greenies. Their leader at the time? Why, Andrew Peacock.]

Why this matters. 

Let’s think always in terms of ideas, interests and ideology, rather than the goodness or badness of specific individuals (I know, it’s hard, I fail at that most of the time, but let us at least make the effort…)

What happened next?

Labor Environment Minister tried to introduce a carbon tax, and was defeated by a very clever, determined campaign..

A Liberal-National Government took charge in Australia from March 1996, hardened the existing opposition to emissions cuts and generally played as much of a blocking role as it could. The emissions climbe and climbed and the opportunity to do anything meaningful about climate change was squandered. So it goes.

Categories
Australia Denial

May 25, 2011 – Aussie #climate scientist smeared rather than engaged. Plus ca change…

On this day, May 25, 2011 noted climate scientist and deep thinker Alan Jones [that is irony – the man is a particularly shocking “shock jock”] tried to undermine a climate scientist on his radio show.


The context was that the minority Labor government of Julia Gillard was trying to get a carbon price (“a carbon tax” according to its opponents) through Parliament. There was an extremely virulent agitation against this.

Jones had David Karoly, Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne and a contributor to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on his show.

Jones: Are you being paid for being on the Government’s Climate Commission Science Advisory Panel?…

Karoly: No, my salary is not being paid by that.

Jones: Are you in any, and in receipt of any, benefits or funds or anything at all from the…

Karoly: I am receiving a travel allowance to cover the costs of going to meetings of the Science Advisory Panel and I am receiving a small retainer which is substantially less than your daily salary.

Jones: So you’re paid by the Government and then you give an opinion on the science of climate change. Have you ever heard about he who pays the piper calls the tune?’ (Cited in Barry 2011b) (Ward, 2015: 235)

Why this matters. 

This is a classic technique, to say that if someone gets any money at all from Them, then they and their work can be dismissed without any discussion of its merits, shortcomings, implications.

It’s a lazy (but necessary for the thick) shortcut to “winning.”

What happened next?

The Gillard legislation got up, and was then repealed by the next Prime Minister, Tony “Wrecking Ball” Abbott.

Gillard lost a leadership challenge in 2013, was replaced by Kevin Rudd.

Jones finished as a radio presenter in 2020. His Sky News Australia contract was not renewed.

Karoly retired in 2021.

Categories
Science Scientists

May 25, 1953 – “I read about them in Time Magazine” (Gilbert Plass’s greenhouse warning

On this day, May 1953, Time Magazine reported on Gilbert Plass’ presentation at the American Geophysical Union

.Careful readers of this site will know that a Western Australian newspaper had already covered this –

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

Why this matters

The idea of a greenhouse world was well understood by the mid-1950s (albeit a smaller concern than – say – thermonuclear war)

See May 28th for another (early) timely Time piece.

Categories
Science Scientists

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

On this day, May 24 2007 James Hansen’s paper  “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise” was published.

Hansen made the basic point that – ah, hell, here’s the abstract –

I suggest that a ‘scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

Why this matters. 

Despite what the lunatic climate deniers will tell you, scientists are generally very very cautious, unwilling to extrapolate beyond their datasets. They are human, make mistakes, come to false conclusions, sure.  But on the whole “science” is pretty damned hot.  And it if there is a bias, it is towards reticence – that’s before we even talk about the chilling effect of smear campaigns etc etc.

What happened next?

Hansen has kept on trucking. A mensch [on second thought, does someone have a better word that isn’t so gendered?]