Month: October 2023

Categories
Science United States of America

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 28, 2000, famed climate scientist James Hansen wrote an open letter…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369,4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Hansen had not yet retired from NASA – hadn’t yet been pushed out by the Bush administration’s attempts to shut him up. He knew that the IPCC report was coming out. And he decided to do some truth telling. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

The problem is not the science, the problem is not the scientists. The problem is the power structures. This is nothing that radicals have been telling us that for a very long time, but the people who want to “save the world” never quite get their shit together. Here we are. 

What happened next

Hansen started getting nicked on demos, bless him.

And is still Doing The Science. Turns out there’s global warming in the pipeline – https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

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

October 25, 1980 – Australian radio’s The Science Show talks about climate change…

Forty-three years ago, on this day, October 25, 1980, episode 234 of the Science Show had the following – Letter re Science Show; Flight from Maths; Hepatitis B Vaccine Success; Carbon Dioxide and Climate; Kakadu National Park; Northern Territory Wildlife.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were more and more people writing about potential climate change. The Australian Academy of Science had just had its first big conference. And so getting a brief item about (I think this one was about starting to make measurements at Cape Grim)something else was not a big surprise. And, as I’ve said before the very first Science Show, in the middle of 1975, had talked climate with Lord Ritchie Calder. 

What I think we can learn from this

Again, that subset of Australian politicians who listen to the Science Show, which is probably a much smaller proportion than the national average, would have known about the problem Long, Long ago.

What happened next

We kept talking about it. Everyone has kept talking about it. In the late 1980s the denial campaigns kicked into gear, once it was clear action was needed, and that oil, coal and gas were in the cross-hairs.

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
United Kingdom

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 24, 2003, the last flight of the white elephant known as Concorde took place. The loss of a plane upon take-off in Paris had been the last nail in the coffin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a disaster with a Concorde that had crashed while taking off at Orly because something had fallen off the previous plane and got spat into a fuel tank. But longer term Concorde has always been a prestige vanity project. It had never made money. 

What I think we can learn from this

Well, the history of Concorde is intimately tied to the history of atmospheric science, and indeed, the birth of the modern environmental movement because of concerns over sonic booms, and ozone depletion (the late 60s and early 70s are full of this). And you could argue, I think with just cause, that the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank in the United States really came into existence because of the successful defeat of SSTS by Congress, following a battle against supersonic air travel by American environmentalists, etc. 

More broadly it’s the 20 year anniversary, so there might be some “think pieces” about the retreat from technology and human optimism no longer being a thing, shrinking from our Promethean heritage and duties, because people can knock out for one and a half 1000 words about this crap easily enough.

What happened next

Well, there’s always new planes on the drawing board. They’re lighter and faster and all the rest of it, apparently. But not supersonic. 

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
United States of America

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

On this day, 40 years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency released the second revised edition of “Projecting future sea level rise : methodology, estimates to the year 2100, and research needs” by John S. Hoffman, Dale Keyes, James G. Titus.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measurements.

The context was that the EPA had, like others, been taking an interest in long-term effects. Long-before “the Greenhouse Effect” became a threat (finally) acknowledged by our lords and masters, smart people were doing the sums.

What we learn – nothing. We never learn anything


What happened next – the issue broke through in 1988, for what it was worth. And we have spent the 35 years since then making things worse.

Categories
United States of America

October 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

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.

Categories
United States of America

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

Fifty four years ago, on this day, October 22, 1969, an article by Edmund Muskie, a senior American politician (someone seen as a contender for president, and had been the prospective VP on Hubert Humphrey’s ticket in 1968) was published. Muskie was aware of the issue (as were many others, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan).

22 Oct 1969 Edmund Muskie article- ENVIRONMENTAL JURISDICTION IN THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE – published which includes the following – “The increased use of fossil fuels affects not only local environments but the global environment as well. The increased introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect, raising temperatures.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

A couple of months earlier, Daniel Moynahan had raised the question to a higher level with his memo which Muskie may or may not have seen. But Muskie would have been aware, presumably, that from a foreign policy perspective the US were trying to create the environment as a separate entity which they could dominate (Nixon had given a speech about it to the North Atlantic Council in April 1969, hoping people would just stop talking about the napalming of babies). The UN Secretary General U Thant was speaking about the issue by June 1969. 

See also ”Arming Mother Nature”

What I think we can learn from this is that from 1968-69 senior politicians in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, we’re talking about fossil fuels causing catastrophic climate change. This is far earlier than I think most people understand.

What happened next

I think Muskie made a bid to be the Democratic nominee and if I recall, rightly, his mental health history talked against him.

MUSKIE WAS CARTER’S SEC OF STATE AT THE END. NAME IS ON THE GLOBAL FUTURE TIME TO ACT REPORT

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
United States of America

October 21, 1983 – “Changing Climate” report released

Forty years ago, on this day, October 21, 1983, another climate change report was released, just a couple of days after the Environmental Protection Agency one. It took a much more “yeah, nothing to worry about really” line.

and – https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/21/us/haste-of-global-warming-trend-opposed.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was –

The report had been commissioned in 1979, thanks to the efforts of a Democratic Senator, the lead author William Nirenberg. It is now seen as a direct rebuttal if you will, of the EPA report though, obviously, it wasn’t written as such. For the lowdown, see two articles, one by Naomi Oreskses and the other by Nirenberg’s daughter.

 The point of the Changing Climate report is that it gave aid and comfort to those who were saying “oh still nothing to see here.” The Reagan administration was still pretty deep in denial, having shat all over the Global 2000 report. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

A variation on the “horse race politics”

What happened next

“Despite their conflicting conclusions, both reports actually confirmed the inevitability of greenhouse warming, but George Keyworth and Whitehouse counsel Ed Meese played up the disparities between Nierenberg’s “sober” NAS report and the “unnecessarily alarmist” EPA study, imbuing press coverage of the climate issue with a sense of confusion rather than concern. The press, not surprisingly, took more interest in the “debate” between the EPA and NAS scientists than in the broader implications of the science itself. Both studies were soon forgotten.“

(Howe, 2014:134)

See Merchants of Doubt chapter about this – argues it is two different reports, the physical scientists agreeing with other reports, and two chapters by economists…

MOD page 180

Has also led to two articles – From Chicken Little to Dr Pangloss

It would be another four years or five years before climate was able to properly take off again. And Nirenberg was still in the thick of nonsense like the George Marshall Institute.

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

Nicholas Nierenberg rebuttal of Oreskes

https://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/1166378/oreskescritique.pdf

And William Connelly

https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/10/nierneberg-concluded-oreskes-i

Categories
Australia United States of America

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 20, 1983, the Murdoch-owned newspaper The Australian gave a tolerably accurate summation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s report.

The Australian page 3 climatic change (based on EPA report)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Australian runs a page three greenhouse gases story that isn’t a complete shit show?! By this point, climate change was well understood as a potential long-term problem in Australia, various magazines, newspapers would run stories. Senators would make speeches… 

What I think we can learn from this

 I guess, what we learn is that The Australian newspaper has decayed markedly, perhaps never from a particularly high baseline. But now it’s just a fucking rag.

What happened next

There was another climate report released by the National Academy of Science the following day. And that is the topic of tomorrow’s blog post….

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

October 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 19, 2002, another civil society organisation – Doctors for the Environment – joined the fray.

“David Shearman with his amazing persistence undertook to complete the necessary paperwork and on the 19th October 2002 “Doctors for the Environment, Australia” was well on its way to becoming a fully constituted environmental entity at the Mornington meeting”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear that at the federal level, the Howard Government was determined to avoid doing anything about climate change. It had already said no to even an emissions trading scheme, and a few months earlier John Howard had taken delight in saying that Australia would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This despite having extracted a fantastically generous deal. The other context is that public health academics had been worrying about climate impacts for a while, and probably felt there needed to be a specific organisation. 

What I think we can learn from this

Groups form. But my goodness it’s hard to keep them going, especially when it’s clear that the government is determined to do nothing, or only lip service…

What happened next

What happened next? Well, doctors for the environment is still going 20 years 21 years later. 

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
United States of America

October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

Forty years ago, on this day, October 18, 1983, your average television-watching American gets a dose of reality.

On October 18, 1983, all three U.S. television networks ran two-minute stories on the greenhouse effect, and CBS and ABC placed their stories at or near the top of the news programs. What had happened? The Environmental Protection Agency had issued a report analyzing the impact of the greenhouse effect on the temperature of the earth. CBS and ABC featured John Hoffman of the EPA urging that preparations be made for the future.

Sachsman

EPA report – https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/10/18/EPA-report-predicts-catastrophic-global-warming/2626435297600/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” had come out. It said that, well, you could institute a global carbon tax or rather even if you could, which was a long shot, it would only delay warming by a few years. This was, I think, the first time that all three major networks simultaneously covered the environment story.

What I think we can learn from this

We should remember that Walter Cronkite had been talking about climate in his documentary, The 20th Century, in the episode, The Power of the Sea on March 22 1960. Spilhaus had said what he said.

What we can learn is that 40 years ago, American people were told what was happening pretty clearly. I don’t think there was any massive spike in membership of the Sierra Club or EDF or whatever. And as Joshua Howe in his excellent “Behind the Curve” notes, they just weren’t taking it on as an issue because it’s too big. It’s too diffuse,

“Joseph Smagorinsky, author of the climate-modeling chapter for Changing Climate, was highly critical of the EPA report. Speaking at Youngstown University, he said, “Evidently the EPA was hell-bent on coming up with spectacular numbers. . . . It’s bad enough when an individual does this kind of thing, but when a federal agency does it . . .”105” (Nierenberg et al. 2010:344)

What happened next

The American people did not rise up and save themselves, because some of them at least probably thought “why bother, we’re all gonna get nuked anyway?”

This, you see, was also the time of the Second Cold War fears of the nuclear winter, if there were a “nuclear exchange” (of course that also got people thinking about the atmosphere as something that humans could seriously fuck up.)

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.