Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United States of America

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched

Sixty four years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1960, a weather satellite started being like the wheels on the bus (i.e. going round and round).

On 1 April 1960, the USA launched its first meteorological satellite, TIROS 1. It was a remarkable experience for people to be able to view the earth and its atmosphere from the outside. The bluish colour of our planet fascinated observers and a number of well-known features of the circulation of the atmosphere became visible through the cloud formations that they create.

(Bolin, 2007) Page 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we’d been talking about putting satellites into space for 100 years. And that had finally happened in September 1957 with Sputnik. The Americans had some failures but were now on the path

Tiros 1 was a weather satellite. And how sad that Johnny von Neumann wasn’t alive to see it. A shame. 

What we learn from this is being able to really see and measure the world from above had an enormous impact on not just weather forecasting, but also just thinking about how the systems worked. (See Paul Edwards’ A Vast Machine).

What happened next? A lot more satellites, a lot bigger computers, a lot better picture and precisely zero meaningful action. On the problem we identified. 

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

Edwards, P. 2010 A Vast Machine. MIT PRess

Also on this day: 

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

April 1, 2001 – John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking

Categories
Fossil fuels

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

One hundred and sixty seven years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1857, Bucharest was the first city to be crude…

The contract began to be executed on April 1, 1857, when, by replacing the kidnapped oil with the products supplied by the Rafov refinery, “Bucharest became the first city in the world illuminated entirely with distilled crude oil.” https://www.worldrecordacademy.org/technology/worlds-first-oil-refinery-ploiesti-218277

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 286ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some city had to be the first to be lit by oil. And there’s lots of oil in that part of the world. So perhaps not surprising. 

What we learn was that before pipelines and supertankers it was location, location, location

What happened next: A couple of years later, Drake hit oil in Pennsylvania. It’s also important to remember that Burma oil had been going for quite some time by this stage, in South East Asia.

Ultimately, it would only be the first Oil Shock (1973) that meant oil for generating electricity started taking a dive.

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.

Also on this day: 

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

April 1, 2001 – John Howard sucks up to George Bush on climate wrecking

Categories
United Kingdom

March 31, 1973 – Protest in Piccadilly Circus

Fifty one years ago, on this day, March 31st, 1973, there was a demo in London.  

We found out about it first when we went down on 31 March to London, where Commitment were blocking off Piccadilly Circus from cars. There were about 400 people there and a lot of police, who swooped in and arrested the obvious ringleaders”. The attempt to block the road was in fact not much of a success as most of the remaining protesters seemed unwilling to do anything. “I ended up as one of the organisers – it became that ridiculous!”

http://www.muthergrumble.co.uk/issue17/mg1708.htm

Horace Herring, H. 2003. Energy Utopianism p.104

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Young Liberals had been banging the drum about environmental issues. There had already been a similar style protests in 1971. This one seems to have garnered even less press but will have influenced some people I guess? The war against the car or the war against motorists. What can you do? What a species we are! 

What we can learn is that antipathy towards cars being taken over by cities goes back a long way. “Reclaim the Streets” goes back a long way. And our failure to succeed goes back a long way. 

What happened next, Commitment could not be maintained. But people within it stayed committed to the broader cause of ecological sanity. Including Victor Anderson…

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.

Also on this day: 

March 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

Categories
United States of America

March 31, 1968 – Can the world be saved?

Fifty six years ago, on this day, March 31st, 1968, the ecologist LaMont Cole pondered the Big Question…

Cole, L. 1968. Can the world be saved? New York TImes, March 31.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people were beginning to freak out about not just the bomb, but also the Population Bomb, local air pollution, national air pollution a sense of fragility and weakness.

This might be tied to the in this instance of the Tet Offensive and the question of whether rich white people could continue to dominate.

LaMont Cole at this point was worried about the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere potentially dropping and causing us all to choke to death; that was revealed to be not something to worry about a couple of years later.  

What we learned is that you know, people were reading this stuff and it was sensitising them. When things like the Santa Barbara oil spill came along, in late January of 1969, folks could join the dots and go, “oops.” 

What happened next, the Santa Barbara oil spill. People joining the dots and going “oops.”

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.

Also on this day: 

March 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

Categories
United States of America

March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

Seventy six years ago, on this day, March 30th, 1948, a new (and frankly Malthusian) NGO is set up.

The Conservation Foundation, which was to initiate research and education on all aspects of conservation from water to forests to wildlife, received its charter on March 30, 1948. 

p297-8 Pipes, Richard, and Edward Wilson. G. Evelyn Hutchinson and the Invention of Modern Ecology, Yale University Press, 2011

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been concerns about loss of habitat and so forth. And two books “Our Plundered Planet” by Fairield Osborn and “Road to Survival” by William Vogt were published that year. 

There had also of course been local conservation efforts, many tied to white supremacism. (see here). 

What we learned from this 

It’s hardly a surprise to anyone who’s paying attention that questions of environmental limits are tied up with who gets to continue to own and enjoy what is being portrayed as a very static cake. (hint: the people with the biggest spoons and the biggest knives, knives which they have used already and not just on the cake.)

What happened next, the Conservation Foundation was an important node in activity around well, conservation for a long time.  Of special note – it held the first meeting about the buildup of CO2 in March of 1963, 15 years after it was launched.

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.

Also on this day: 

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
United Kingdom

March 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 29th, 1979, a health conference in Eastbourne hears mention of the C02 problem.

Robson, A. 1979. “Environmental Implications of Fossil-Fuelled Power” https://doi.org/10.1177/146642407909900608

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that by the late 70s, there are questions being asked in Parliament, there are newspaper articles. There was an especial flurry in ‘76-77 about whether carbon dioxide buildup is indeed changing the planet. And the First World Climate Conference has just happened. The Central Electricity Generating Board has had its eye on the issue. And so it’s unsurprising perhaps, that it should be mentioned, albeit in passing, at a conference about health.

What we learn is this idea that carbon dioxide and climate change might have impacts on health goes back a lot further than 2016 or whenever. And we have been failing to do anything about this issue for a lot longer than we like to admit. 

What happened next, climate didn’t really climb on to the health agenda until well, 10 years later, when “the greenhouse effect” started to punch people in the face. 

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.

Also on this day: 

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
Coal United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Seven years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2017, the once and future President does another empty stunt.

28 March 2017 Trump signs exec order to ‘bring back coal’ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/trumps-order-on-energy-promises-coal-jobs-and-a-clean-environment-what-does-that-look-like

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

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.

The context was that Donald Trump had just enjoyed the biggliest inauguration crowd ever, and was doing the normal sorts of grift that conmen do, signing executive orders and bleating and ranting. 

 What we learn is that people want to believe them. By the time this post, which was drafted in December of 2023, is published, it will be clearer about whether Trump is indeed going to be the Republican nominee for president. It’s looking at the stage that he will be. But anything can happen.  (update – but hasn’t yet, Jan 27 2024).

What happened next, Trump did not bring back coal, because coal is in structural decline. And you can piss in the wind, and that seems to be enough for some people….

See also Obama’s vague shout out in 2008…

Also on this day: 

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Categories
Australia

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 27th, 2008, climate scientist James Hansen tried to get through to new Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf

Probably as much impact as Monckton’s Jan 3 2010 letter!!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Hansen was pretty desperate by this stage – getting arrested, calling coal power plants death machines. And he was writing to Kevin Rudd because Rudd was newly elected Prime Minister making a song and dance about climate change. And in the process of producing various green papers and so forth about an emissions trading scheme he would introduce, and so Hansen was trying to stiffen Rudd’s spine which, and I say this is no disrespect to James Hansen, who is an intellectual and moral giant was, in fact, a fool’s errand. 

What we learn is that scientists can science all they like, and they can train politicians, be of use to politicians, but politicians are going to politician. And yes, you have to dance with the one that brung you. But oh my goodness, dancing with two left feet and dancing with fears in your eyes…

What happened next? Hansen’s intervention had no discernible impact on Rudd. There was a green paper, a shaky white paper, shitty legislation that was defeated once and then twice. Then Rudd refused to call a “double dissolution” election. And Rudd then tested the loyalty of Julia Gillard one time too often. And that’s all she wrote, except, of course, Rudd clawed and knifed his way  back to the prime ministership… And oh my God, what an ungodly mess it was. Meanwhile, the emissions continued, and the atmospheric concentrations increased. 

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.

Also on this day: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

March 26, 2007 – Lavoisier Group lay into CCS

Seventeen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2007, the broken clocks at the Lavoisier Group (a denialist outfit) were right about CCS, with an article in the Brisbane Courier Mail denouncing it as a boondoggle that would not ‘work’ but would waste a lot of money.

Last month Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s National Clean Coal Initiative.

Roughly speaking, the term clean coal refers to various technologies for removing carbon dioxide from coal when it is used to generate electricity, both before and after combustion occurs. The term encompasses carbon capture and storage technologies.

Rudd’s policy commits $500 million of taxpayer funds on the development of these technologies, with the proviso that each taxpayer dollar must be matched by two private sector dollars.

Rudd also proclaimed that Labor would establish an emissions trading scheme, set renewable energy targets, develop plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, convene a summit on climate change and ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Apart from ratifying an obsolete international treaty and organising yet another Canberra talkfest, Labor’s policy of subsidising corporations, making grandiose plans and setting impressive-sounding targets is eerily similar to existing Government policy.

The Howard Government happily boasts about Australia meeting its Kyoto targets and has already set up a taskforce to examine emissions trading schemes.

Its Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund has committed taxpayer funds of $500 million for research, with the proviso that each taxpayer dollar must be matched by—you guessed it—two private sector dollars. Additional funding is planned for future years.

Robson, A. 2007. Clean coal is all hot air. Courier Mail, March 26

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a few days before the ACTU had been in the news, promoting CCS. And everyone was talking about CCS; the Lavoisier Group were keen to try to debunk it. 

What we learn from this is that just because they’re climate denialists and idiots, doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the plausibility of a technology, even if it is being pushed as a solution for a problem that they don’t believe exists. Stopped clocks right twice a day and all that. 

What happened next The Lavoisier Group, which was essentially Ray Evans and his mates funded by Hugh Morgan, kept going and were pretty effective at what they did. This was also in the lead up to Labor Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd‘s conference in Parliament as opposition leader on March 31 2007 when he said that “climate change is the great moral challenge of our time.” 

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.

Also on this day: 

March 26, 1979 – Exxon meets a climate scientist

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 25th 1982, there was network news coverage of “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. 

(Sachsman, 2000)

You can see the clip here

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See also https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6584134

See also the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was becoming a real cause of concern among scientists and a very small band of civil servants and elected politicians who were in close touch with these scientists. There had already been hearings in 1980, led by Senator Paul Tsongas, who was communicating with scientists like Wally Broecker. And here was another set of hearings, this time within Congress, with Al Gore in the mix too.  It’s also happening just after the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn expressing real concerns. It’s happening just as the Reagan administration, believe it or not, has got the “carbon dioxide science and consensus” meeting going. So the timing is good. 

What we learn is that within the policy subsystems, people are building meetings, reports, seminars, networks, fighting to edge the issue closer and closer to being “on the agenda.” You can say what you like about Al Gore – I’m sure much of it is true. But he has persisted. It’d be interesting to know what Roger Revelle thought of Gore’s efforts in the 80s. 

What happened next? There were more hearings in 84. And then in 85, the whole issue started to be turbo-charged, because of a meeting of scientists in Austria, in the city of Villach. And after that, they kept trying harder and harder. And yes, got it onto the agenda, in the summer of 1988. 

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.

Also on this day: 

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed