Sixty eight years ago, on this day, October 23, 1955, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on the changing weather that included mention of carbon dioxide build-up as one of the possible causes…
“Many scientists believe that the earth’s rising temperatures may be partly due to the six billion tons of carbon dioxide dumped into the earth’s atmosphere each year from the smokestacks of industrial plants…”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by 1955, there were more and more of these stories because the weather seemed to be changing. And we were taking better measures (not yet satellites, obviously). And talk of “weather modification” (especially as a weapon of war) was all the rage as well. The broader context is, of course, that the people of Los Angeles had more immediate air pollution issues on their plate, namely smog, which they wanted to believe, and were encouraged to believe came from well, anywhere, but the motor car.
(note to self – this was 8 days after the Macleans Magazine article by Berrill; did they just clip it and get a react quote from George Kimble?]
)What happened next
There would be more and more carbon dioxide stories for two years, to the late 50s. And then, oddly, because it was no longer speculation, because it was fact, the whole thing became less newsworthy (especially without the International Geophysical Year hook).
Btw one of the people cited in this article (George Kimble) wrote a 1962 article in the New York Times.
What I think we can learn from this
And I suppose it’s the speculation, “the competing theories” that help a journalist pad out a story and leave the reader with a sense of being informed about an ongoing scientific controversy. Once it’s over, well, the reader then would be focusing on “what can we do?” And certainly on carbon dioxide, not much is the answer, whereas there is a bewildering plethora of solutions for nitrogen, sulphur, etc. See, the “Breath of Life” book published in 1965.
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.