Sixty-six years ago today (October 8th, 1958) British meteorologist Gordon Manley wrote to his friend, steam engineer Guy Callendar, who had – for the past twenty-plus years had been banging on about carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere as a (or even the) factor affecting the climate.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the International Geophysical Year was happening. More people were coming on board with the carbon dioxide theory, Gilbert Plass, GER Deakin, Appleton, etc. And Manley was congratulating Guy Callendar, bless.
What we learn is that Guy Callendar was getting a little bit of recognition and was getting published still in journals like Tellus and so forth. But he wasn’t being carried through the streets on people’s shoulders, as perhaps he should have been. Such is the nature of humanity when the wrong person making the announcement, if you’re Miss Triggs.
What we learn is that you can be right and not get the credit you deserve. That’s one of the oldest stories in the book.
What happened next Callendar had a couple of more really astute observations in him about, for example, why theories aren’t popular, and so forth. And he died in 1964, 37 years to the day after Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius died.
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
CP 1, Gordon Manley to Callendar, 8 October 1958, cited in Fleming, 2007
Also on this day:
October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up
October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.
October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story
3 replies on “October 8, 1958 – “CO2 has begun to come home, hasn’t it?””
Just a little terse for my liking. One has to assume that the title of the article is what its opening paragraph is referring to, whereas it could just be expanded a little to avoid doubt. (Which I’d argue is kind-of important for an article trying to reach beyond its community.) It also includes cryptic details that might either be irrelevant (e.g. Mrs. Triggs) or profoundly relevant (e.g. Svante Arrhenius). A small amount of expansion – while possibly off-piste for this site (this is my first visit) – would help make the context of the facts presented here much clearer. This feels a little too “a nod and a wink” for something hoping to achieve greater outreach. Enjoyable for someone in the know like me (although I still don’t get the Mrs. Triggs thing), but needlessly perplexing for someone who’s learning about this topic. Nonetheless, the idea of having a “climate fact of the day” is a great one.
Hi Andrew (if I may),
first, thanks for taking the time to comment
second, you are absolutely right. The number one failing of this site (other failings exist!) is that it is indeed sometimes too terse/cryptic. There’s reasons for that (most posts are narrated as I walk along a canal feeding moorhens, then lightly polished), but at the end of the day, the posts could do with someone prodding me to add more context, more links. The posts this year have been, on the whole, a bit better (there’s categories for broader context, specific context, what we learn, what happened next) and a bit more linking (still not enough). The older posts (2024 and earlier) don’t always have that. I will amend this post a bit, (and include a link to Miss Triggs), but will only fix up all the old posts after I win the lottery…
Best wishes
Marc
Apologies for marrying-off Miss Triggs in my previous comment.