Serene Doomer (Bsky here) responds to Vol 3. no 2 of William Barbat’s astonishing CO2 Newsletter, which you can read here.
It’s a curious thing, to look back 44 years. Compared to today, climate science was flying blind. Satellite technology was advancing – Lansat 4 was launched in July 1982, and the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) used on NOAA’s polar orbiting satellites became standardised around this time. Datasets were patchy, and biased towards the Northern Hemisphere; and rudimentary computer models predicted the future with limited accuracy. The knowledge gap was seen as the main barrier to action. It wasn’t unreasonable to think that mankind was sensible enough to save itself, once the existential threat was seen clearly enough. William Barbat’s bi-monthly newsletters attempted to bring the ‘CO₂-greenhouse problem‘ into sharper focus.
The Jan-Feb 1982 edition of the CO₂ Newsletter, Volume 3 No 2, led with ‘Accelerating sea level rise is attributed to climate change‘ (yes, deniers, that phrase was used back then). Etkins & Epstein’s research established that there had been a 120 mm sea level rise, which could not be accounted for by thermal ocean expansion. They calculated that 50,000 km³ of polar ice must have been discharged over the previous 40 years. They also noted that this movement of weight would retard the Earth’s rotation; and surmised that it explained around 75% of the reduction in angular velocity that had been observed.
The editorial in Vol 3, No 2 highlighted the proposed cut in funding of the Department of Energy’s CO₂-greenhouse research program, from $12 million in 1982, to $8 million in 1983, and the impact that this would have on climate science:
“Our greatest concern is that acquisition of hard scientific data has been for years – and still is – far too slow to convince the remaining skeptics of the reality and imminence of CO₂ impacts in a timely manner.”
From our vantage point in the age of information, misinformation, and disinformation, we now know that a wealth of data is insufficient to change minds hardened by fossil fuel propaganda. Even a 99% agreement among climate scientists is insufficient to persuade people to give up the luxuries and conveniences that are hammering nails into humanity’s coffin. The following statement was true then, and is true now:
“For perspective, the CO2-greenhouse problem, the acid-rain problem, and most of the air-pollution problems all have a common source: fossil fuels. These problems also share a common remedy: supplant fossil fuels.”
The newsletter presents extracts from recent reports, including the horrifying news that climate change could benefit Russian agriculture, while having the opposite effect in the US. What a shame this prospect wasn’t enough to move policymakers.
From “Greenhouse effect’ scenario: U.S. to suffer, Russia to thrive”, unsigned article in ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS (Denver, CO) January 14, 1982:
“Russell E. Train, president of the World Wildlife Fund -U.S., said present rates of growth in the global use of coal and other fossil fuels could cause the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to double by 2050. “This could increase average global temperatures by about 2 degrees centigrade, ‘with progressively greater increases as you move toward the poles,’ said Train, a former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator.
“He said the warmer climate would mean ‘a marked improvement’ in agriculture in northern areas of the Soviet Union, where farming is marginal.
“On the other hand, the rich grain belt of the United States would find temperatures rising about 5 degrees centigrade, ‘with an accompanying sharp reduction in rainfall,’ Train told a Joint Economic Committee hearing on the role of coal in revitalizing the economy.”
“Since burning coal gives off considerably more carbon dioxide than oil or natural gas, Train suggested it might not be a good idea to let ‘world economies become “hooked” on the use of coal. . .”
Barbat reviews a book by British astronomer and science writer, John Gribbin, published in 1981:
From ‘Carbon dioxide, Climate and Man’, by John Gribbin
Gribbin sets out the basics: more CO₂ in the atmosphere means a warmer planet; fossil fuels are the main source of CO₂, with cutting and burning forests as a secondary source; emissions will increase going forward. The Mauna Loa observatory had started measuring atmospheric CO₂ in 1958, and a rise from 315ppm to 335ppm had been noted since around then – an increase of 6%. Gribbin estimated a total rise since 1860 of between 14% and 25%. Gribbin suggests that atmospheric CO₂ would double by 2030, which would result in global temperature increases of around 2°C above the pre-industrial baseline, and possibly as high as 5°C, according to the crude and inaccurate computer models of the day.
Gribbin recognised that global warming would not be evenly distributed, and acknowledged that this would negatively impact developed countries’ harvests – but he concluded that rice yields in ‘Third World’ nations would probably increase. In fact, he was concerned that this may be a barrier to effective action:
“International agreement on action to control CO₂ is unlikely, because while the US is in favor of action, Europe is not enthusiastic, the USSR is unconvinced, and the Third World might see itself benefitting from a warmer earth…”
Gribbin acknowledges that a reduction in fossil fuel burning would reduce emissions, and nods to renewable energy, stating: “irrevocable commitments to new fossil fuel programmes should not be made – in the developed world at least…” If only we had heeded that!
From “Two Views on the Carbon-Dioxide Problem’, TECHNOLOGY REVIEW November/December 1981:
The uncertainty of effects is touched upon in ‘Reduction at the Source’, Scroggin & Harris. Arguments against reducing fossil fuel use include the fact that “some scientists believe it may already be too late to avoid significant climatic changes” a view the authors deem as too pessimistic, as it overlooks human resourcefulness. They recognise that policy makers are unlikely to act until the effects are visible – and that, once the effects are visible, it may be too late to reverse:
“Thus, the policymaker’s dilemma is that when the ‘signal’ announcing the gradual global warming from CO₂ is finally identified, the pattern of change will already be well establish- ed. It may then be too late to prevent continued climatic change, even if the countries of the world agree to try…”
Indeed! The good sense of reversing direction sooner, rather than later, is further discussed. Gradual phaseouts are easier for society and the economy to absorb. But this pesky distraction of winners and losers persists:
“. . . Some nations may benefit from the new climate and be understandably reluctant to cooperate in a global effort to reduce CO₂ emissions – particularly if the ‘winner’ nation is a developing country that plans to expand its per capita energy consumption…”
It’s worth noting how pervasive this idea has been. BBC Bitesize – which produces material aimed at schoolchildren – only removed their section on the positive impacts of climate change in July 2021. World leaders are currently threatening to invade territories they deem will be ‘winners’. The reality is that there will be no winners, not in the long run.
The second view is from an economist. ‘A More feasible Social Response’, by Lester B Lave. Lave expected that the effects on the climate would not be measurable until around 2000, and believed no nation would be convinced to address climate change before that time. He terms this a recognition lag. A second, solutions lag would come in deciding whether or not to take action to reduce emissions, once the effects were noticeable: “some nations who stand to gain from climatic change might actually encourage fossil-fuel burning”. A third, logistical lag would come if the world actually did decide that reducing emissions was a good idea.
Lave thought we should just forget the whole reducing emissions thing, and concentrate on adaptation: “… Thus, if society is to do something about this potential problem, the emphasis should be on adapting to it…” Lave hoped that the CO₂ problem would be, “a catalyst-for enhancing society’s ability to adapt to and exploit a changing environment…” Well, there’s plenty of exploitation, anyway.
Misconceptions about how the uneven warming would manifest reveal themselves in the article, ‘Will the changes be unbearable?’ by Ellen Ruppel Shell, senior editor of Technology Review. She quotes professor Robert Watts:
“…Watts adds that all models have shown that a two-to- three-degree increase in world temperatures is ‘inevitable if we continue to burn fossil fuels at our present rate.’… Scientists predict that the most serious effect would be change in rainfall patterns that could turn northern Canada into a very lush farm area, while rendering the American prairies as dry as the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The further an area is from the equator, the more its temperature will rise – a 2°C global increase would result in about a 7°C increase near the poles. Hence, the melting of glacial ice and the subsequent flooding of coastal cities is far from impossible. “
Early computer models fell victim to the Symmetry Mistake, which assumed equal warming at both poles. As the Antarctic has more land ice, the observed sea level rises have been less severe than projected. To date. So much is still unknown about where these temperature rises will take us.
“During the Ice Age the earth was only 2 ½ °C cooler than it is today,’ Watts says. ‘If temperatures increase by 2°, it will be warmer than it’s been for thousands of years and there’s no telling what will happen.’”
And even if we could accurately model what +2°, +3°, +4°… would look like, would governments or society be motivated to change?
“What can or should be done to prevent CO₂-induced temperature in- creases depends on the amount inconvenience, cost, and setback society is willing to endure.”
Marvin Miller, principle research scientist at MIT, noted that there was no technological fix to inspire a reduction in emissions – whereas recent discoveries of coal reserves tempted mankind in the opposite direction:
“The only way we have of dealing with the problem is to restrict fossil-fuel consumption,’ an act of self-discipline he admits will be particularly difficult in light of the conclusion of the international World Coal Study, published last year, that massive coal reserves in the United States, Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China could serve as the ‘bridge to our energy future’… Miller says models show that if all available coal reserves were burned for fuel, atmospheric CO₂ levels could theoretically go as high as 1200 ppm-a decidedly unhealthy concentration.”
Greg Marland, a geologist from Oak Ridge Laboratory hit the nail on the head with his comment: “We simply can’t stop burning fossil fuels immediately – the economy won’t stand for it,” and recommended further study before any rash decisions were made. Sit tight, and assess.
Finally, under a heading Potential CO₂ problems for U.S. Agriculture, Barbat looks ahead to the ‘Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity‘ conference, which was convening to examine the impact that high levels of CO₂ would have on crop yields, plant biology and ecosystems. The conference was sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Edgar Lemon’s 1983 book, CO₂ and Plants: The Response of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was written from the findings of this conference.
Barbat acknowledges the fact that climatic changes will offset any fertilization advantages, and turns his mind back to the 1930s dust bowl conditions. He suggests that changes in precipitation could shift the wheat belt northward to Canada (hey, perhaps Canada could become the 51st state of America, to counter this!), bring drier conditions around the Great Valley of California, and reduce the run-off from the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
He points to research from two of the early harbingers of the climate crisis, Roger Revelle and Hermann Flohn. Flohn expected a doubling of pre-industrial CO₂ levels to occur between 2030 and 2050. Revelle used this to theorise about the effects of high atmospheric CO₂ on the hydrology of southwestern US. He warned that the run-off of the Colorado River could reduce by 50% by the time atmospheric CO₂ had doubled. Flow is currently reduced by 20-33%. We can expect to reach a doubling of pre-industrial levels from around 2050, assuming emissions continue to grow at their current pace. Barbat speculated that, “The whole interior of the U.S. might become arid or semi-arid, with a great loss in production from non-irrigated farms.”
William Barbat died in 2024, aged 93. He lived long enough to know that better data and modelling was no match for the economic forces intent on profiting from the burning of fossil fuels. His attempts get the policymakers to change course were in vain. I’d like to thank him for trying. I can imagine the frustration he must have felt, watching his worst fears materialise.
