Month: April 2023

Categories
International Geophysical Year United States of America

 April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty six years ago, on this day, April 4, 1957, the then-new popular science publication ran a story on the issue of carbon dioxide build-up, in the context of the imminent “International Geophysical Year”, which was to start in July…

New Scientist piece on c02 buildup

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Since Gilbert Plass’s statements in May 1953, the carbon dioxide theory of climate change (as propounded by Guy Callendar) was one of several competing theories. There were not, yet, however, super-accurate measures of atmospheric C02. Thanks to Roger Revelle and Charles David Keeling, that would soon change…

What I think we can learn from this

There has been popular knowledge of carbon dioxide build-up for a very long time.  It might therefore be the case that the “Information deficit” model of campaigning is at best misguided.

What happened next

The data from the International Geophysical Year, and Keeling’s meticulous measures at Mauna Loa, would show that yes, atmospheric carbon dioxide was definitely rising. Whether that was a distant small problem or a more immediate big problem, that would take some hashing out…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Australia

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Twenty three years ago, on this day, April 3, 2000, Australian diplomats once again spread bullshit rather than truth about climate change.

At the  Pacific Islands Conference on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea Level Rise, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, well, see a contemporary account…

Mr Hare said he had recently been to a Pacific greenhouse conference in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, [3-7 April – where Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials had tried to play down the impact of the greenhouse effect. He said they had put up arguments that sea level rises were not as high as had been reported and might not necessarily be a result of global warming. Senator Hill said if the department’s officials were mounting that argument, it might be on the basis of scientific uncertainty in the area.. 

Clennel, A. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Conference `stacked’. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April, p.15 

See here too.

 [Compare with Australian diplomats rumoured behaviour at the first IPCC report meeting in Sundsvall in August 1990]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Howard Government had bludgeoned its way into a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto, but it was obvious they would not ratify unless the Americans did (vanishingly small chance of that).  Meanwhile, the Australian diplomatic corps(e) was continuing its minimisation techniques (as per the Sundsvall meeting in 1990). 

What I think we can learn from this

Bureaucrats have their own views, and run their own games.  To think of them as merely passive lackeys of elected politicians is very naive.

What happened next

The oceans have kept on rising. Australia has kept on being a villain. The small island states have kept pointing out that in the absence of serious action, they are screwed (they are screwed).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Coal United States of America

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 2, 2008, Senator Barack Obama, trying to become the Democratic Presidential candidate, made some suitably vague comments about coal while on a campaign stop…

April 2, 2008 Scranton Times quotes Obama as saying “And I saw somebody with a clean coal technology hat. We have abundant coal.”

Page 202-3 Climate Coverup

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The coal industry was trying to paint itself as somehow ‘green’ (fantasies of carbon capture and storage).  Electorally, bits of Pennsylvania and West Virginia were going to be crucial. So finding a way of seeming like you were supporting potential voters, while not alienating others, well, that’s the bread and butter of politics as normal, isn’t it, especially in winner-take-all systems…

What I think we can learn from this

The electoral road to salvation is long and slow…

What happened next

Obama got the gig, Made one effort at doing anything on climate, then gave up, quite like Bill Clinton and the BTU tax back in 1993.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

References

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-and-clean-coal/