Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Antarctica

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

Fifty years ago, on this day, November 20, 1973, a researcher asked the question in the blog title.

1973 Is the west Antarctic ice sheet disintegrating? T Hughes, Journal of Geophysical Research. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC078i033p07884

While there is no explicit mention of climate, it shows the ideas was around, and perhaps put the idea in Mercer’s head?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was people had been looking at sea level rise for a while. They knew that the ice-caps were melting (different causes were being thrown around). The above article does not mentioned carbon dioxide buildup. It is just part of the general pattern of well, “the world’s getting warmer” and there are consequences for that…

What I think we can learn from this/what we should know. 

The crucial thing is that while the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is sitting on bedrock, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is basically a lot of ice perched on mountain tops. So much less stable because warmer water can get underneath and loosen it. 

What happened next

In 1978 John Mercer’s paper “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” was published in Nature. It didn’t cite the Hughes 1973 paper, but it DID cite the following – 

Hughes, T. 1975. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Instability, disintegration, and initiation of Ice Ages. Reviews of Geophysics, Volume13, Issue 4, Pages 502-526 https://doi.org/10.1029/RG013i004p00502

Btw, the answer to Hughes’ 1973 question has become an emphatic “hell yes.”

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
Activism United States of America

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

On this day, November 20, 19330, the man who would later be known as The Fox – the first “ecotage” of the late 1960s upsurge, was born.

James F. Phillips (November 20, 1930 – October 3, 2001) was an American schoolteacher and environmental activist who became known in the Chicago area during the 1960s for his environmental direct action under the pseudonym The Fox.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1962 “Silent Spring” had woken everything up to the consequences of industrialisation. Through the 1960s there was more and more concern about pollution – air, water etc.  By the late 1960s, people were freaking out.  And taking (symbolic) action.  See below – 

See also the book “Ecotage 1972

What we can learn – “ecotage” has been around a long long time. And the history deserves more acknowledgement, because it might inspire us…

What happened next.  

Despite the efforts of individuals and organisations, the damage has kept piling up at our feet.  It’s too late now to avoid severe consequences for “our” actions.  It may not be too late to avert the very worst, but I for one don’t think we will…

Categories
United States of America

November 19, 1958 – doctor warns of long-term problem of carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty five years ago, on this day, November 19, 1958, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting Dr C Leake warns of carbon dioxide build up. This is reported the following day in the Times.

Anon. 1958. Air Pollution Menace to Health. The Times, November, 20, p.16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by the late 1950s scientists (especially American ones) were switching on to the threat of carbon dioxide build-up, and talking about it. 

What I think we can learn from this

Nobody pushed back, really. In a “liberal democracy” the active resistance only starts when you threaten established economic and political interests.

What happened next? It’s unclear if Leake continued warning. The carbon dioxide issue goes a bit quieter in the 60, for various reasons (no news hook, not enough confirmed science/data to justify etc).

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
Uncategorized

November 19, 1943 – FIDO used for the first time

Eighty years ago, on this day, November 19, 1943, the burn-enormous-amounts-of-petrol-to-disperse-fog-so-bombers-can-land was used for the first time.

From the time of the first operational use of FIDO at Graveley on the 19/20 November 1943 until the end of the year, thirty-nine successful landings were made. 

Fleming, 2007, p.56.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Guy Callendar’s bright idea of burning off fog that would prevent RAF planes from returning to base got its first actual physical use, saving crews’ lives so they could continue bombing campaigns against military targets and against civilians. It’s a war.

What I think we can learn from this

Local weather manipulation and global patterns have a backstory

What happened next

 FIDO continued to get used through to the end of the war. 

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
Science Scientists

November 19, 1960 – Guy Callendar gives advice on unpopularity of C02 theory

Sixty three years ago, on this day, November 19, 1960, English steam engineer Guy Callendar noted that the carbon dioxide theory was not universally accepted.

In 1961 he published the results of his study in the Quarterly Journal, concluding that the pattern of recent climatic warming was not incompatible with his hypothesis of increased carbon dioxide radiation.”67 …. As this paper was going to press, Callendar wrote a note listing “[Four] reasons for the unpopularity of CO2 theory in some meteorological quarters.” Although there was no organized opposition to anthropogenic climate change at the time, Callendar’s note reads much like a contemporary response to global warming skeptics:

a. The idea of a single (easily explained) factor causing world wide climatic change seems impossible to those familiar with the complexity of the forces on which any and every climate depends.

b. The idea that man’s actions could influence so vast a complex [system] is very repugnant to some. 

c. The meteorological authorities of the past have pronounced against it, mainly on the basis of faulty observations of water vapour absorption, but also because they had not studied the problem to anything like the extent required to pronounce on it.

d. Last but not the least. They did not think of it themselves!

68. CP 1, Levinson, 19 November 1960

Source: James Roger Fleming 2007 The Life and Times of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964)  p.82

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Callendar had continued writing after the war on climate and had corresponded extensively with Gilbert Plass, the man most responsible for bringing the carbon dioxide theory to prominence in the United States. 

This article with these notes to himself was written after he’d submitted something for publication. And they bear thinking about in terms of why good ideas or sound ideas don’t go further. It’s classic, “not invented here” syndrome. People are unwilling to accept good ideas from people they don’t like.

What I think we can learn from this

is that awareness of intellectual resistance to facts is hardly novel. Even around climate, it goes back further than perhaps you think

What happened next

Callendar’s paper got published. It was his last one. Callendar died in early 1964, on the same day of the year as Svante Arrhenius who died in 1927 (LINK).

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

November 18, 1998 – coal guy becomes Australian environment ambassador

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 18, 1998, Australian Prime Minister John Howard trolls the environmentalists and the planet by appointing a coal guy as “environment minister”.

Australia announces new environment ambassador.

18 November 1998

CANBERRA, Nov 18 (Reuters) – Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer announced on Wednesday the appointment of senior Foreign Affairs and Trade department officer Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new Ambassador for the Environment.

Hillman, who has an extensive economic background, was most recently the Ambassador, permanent representative of Australia to the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. He replaces Meg MacDonald, who held the post since September 1997.

1998 Democrats unhappy that Ralph Hillman is now environment ambassador, with ACF more emollient –

FED – Democrats damn appointment of environment ambassador. 19 November 1998

Australian Associated Press

CANBERRA, Nov 19, AAP – The Australian Democrats today damned the appointment of economist and trade expert Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new ambassador for the environment.

Democrats environment spokeswoman Lyn Alison said the announcement that Mr Hillman would replace Meg McDonald as ambassador this month was a cynical decision.

“Mr Hillman has no obvious qualifications to be an advocate for the environment, he is more likely to work against the interests of the environmental movement,” Senator Alison said in a statement.

“The key credential Mr Hillman brings to the position is his hard-headed economic rationalism and experience in foreign affairs. This makes him just the ticket for a government that doesn’t take the environment seriously.”

But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it would work with Mr Hillman.

“We believe it is a very important job,” ACF campaigns director Michael Krockenberger told AAP.

“It is especially so as Australia faces a lot of international pressure on the environment on issues like climate change and looking after world heritage areas threatened by issues such as uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and oil shale mining at the Great Barrier Reef,” he said.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Howard liked, I think, occasionally to troll his opponents. And this was classic trolling, appointing the head of the Australian Coal Association, to be the next ambassador for the environment, a post that had been created a few years earlier during the “Greenhouse Effect” spasm.

Howard also appointed Wilson Tuckey as Minister for forestry – “ he has a sense of humour.” (quote from Hamilton)

What I think we can learn from this is that by putting these sorts of people in these sorts of positions, you send the message – you demoralise your opponents, you destroy the credibility of organisations and institutions to poison the well. In other words,

What happened next

Howard kept trolling – his best was using World Environment Day to announce, in 2002, that he would submit the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed, forward for ratification.

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

November 18, 1953 – Macmillan tells the truth about committees

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 18, 1953 Harold Macmillan, who would go on to be British Prime Minister, told the truth about the function of (most) committees set up by politicians.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The London Smog of 1952 had killed 4000 people. Even though most of these were The Old and The Sick, still the cry went up, “something must be done.” So the Beaver committee (chaired by Sir Hugh Beaver) was set up…

https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/clean-air-act-1956

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game. But sometimes, thanks to external factors and pushing, committees’ recommendations do actually get implemented and matter…

What happened next

The Beaver Report made a series of recommendations, and as if by magic, the 1956 Clean Air Act.

Macmillan became Prime Minister in 1957, after Anthony Eden suffered a little local difficulty over the Suez Canal.

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
Guest post

Guest post – 5 years on from the 1.5 degrees report and the coming of XR

Calum McFarlane reflects on half a decade of climate promises…

Five years ago I wrote this, nominally as an interview for Marc about how I viewed activism (climate and otherwise) but also as a release valve for all the Big Feelings I was having at that time1.

To quote myself:

“…an abiding sense of unease that things were Not Right (more so than usual) was affirmed by the IPCC 1.5 report – I knew that the uncertain future I was concerned about was much closer than I had feared.”

I have not to this day read the full report – I think I did struggle through the summary at one point. But the gruesome details are not really the point, being as we are five years down the track, and however many increments worse on however many metrics you care to mention. 

(There is of course a counterfactual here – how much worse things might have been if that report had not been published. But given how bad things are now, and how much faster they are getting worse than was expected even five years ago (at least in mainstream IPCC communications, which we know to be ‘conservative’), this is small comfort).

Did this report, and the wave of ‘climate awareness’ that came with it drag more people into the category of being outright worried / scared by climate change, than merely “concerned”, as the pollsters have it? Maybe. But it clearly didn’t have any impact where it matters, where the power to change things is. Again, as I wrote five years ago:

“From here:

‘Matthew Bolton writes that the first principle of making change is that ‘you only get the justice that you have the power to make happen’, the justice that you have ‘the power to compel’. The point of campaigning is to make a difference. It’s not to live in an activist bubble where we can comfort ourselves that we have the right ideas and everyone else has the wrong ideas.’”

We (where “we” = people who would prefer not to have seen our planet get the shit kicked out of it, to use the vernacular) still have no power. Without it, we have compelled no justice. Much ink has been spilled about the reasons for this – after all, it is probably the ultimate “Wicked Problem”. But none of it changes where we are now.

We2 have already unleashed horrors that the writers of the goriest bits of the Old Testament would shrink from. And that is to say nothing of what is now known to be inevitable, or what is waiting for us in the lucky dip I mentally refer to as “sooner and / or worse than expected” in the years and decades to come.

Is there anything else to say? The closing paragraph of part of my interview five years ago “Activist Vuvuzela” covers it all, I think:

“Anything else you’d like to say?

All of the previous answers notwithstanding, I find myself increasingly afraid that humanity will bequeath the current and next generations not only a degraded world, but a lack of hope that anything can ever be better, that there is any point to trying. I hope to find the courage in myself to do the best I can, for as long as I can, for my family, my community, and our planet.

(Sounds trite as I read it back, but there it is).”

Footnotes

  1. The Big Feelings are different now, but they haven’t gone anywhere. 
  2. White, rich men, mainly
Categories
Activism United Kingdom

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Five years ago, on this day, November 17, 2018, the new sexy climate group “Extinction Rebellion” occupied five bridges in London.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/17/thousands-gather-to-block-london-bridges-in-climate-rebellion

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Extinction Rebellion was dreamed up in 2018 by Gail Bradbrook, and Roger Hallam and others. People did some stickering and fly posting. They announced a “declaration of rebellion” in Parliament Square at the end of October, and this was their next big media stunt. 

And how many of those 1000s of people are now sitting in front of their televisions, blaming themselves for not having the tenacity to stay with it? 

[To do – get someone who was there on the day in London, to give them memories of the day, and ideally, something that they wrote at the time.]

What I think we can learn from this

It’s not their fault. It was a toxic environment, the chaotic process, but we don’t know how to do social movement organisations. We just cut straight to the March on Washington in 1963, and people are giving “I Have a Dream” speeches, not understanding all that went for the so called star system. 

What happened next

XR held two “rebellions” in 2019. The second was a damp-ish squib, and then came the pandemic. They’ve never really been able to re-heat the souffle, and at least in Manchester, the local groups tanked.

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
Activism

November 17 – World Vasectomy Day

Cut the cord… as the Killers sing.

World Vasectomy Day 2023 https://wvd.org/

The context

The day has been going since 2010. I think. Nice to see men taking responsibility for their own fertility. My personal story is well you can read it here in the Conversation about having kids

What I think we can learn from this

There’s already plenty of humans  on the planet.

What happened next

Much less to worry about. If I were a breeder, I’d be looking at the climate records getting scratched and thinking about the near future into which my precious bairns were growing up and I’d be freaking out.

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.