Category: CO2 Newsletter

Categories
Antarctica CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter Barbat articles CO2 Newsletter commentary Science Scientists

“remarkably accurate statements” – Professor van den Broeke assesses “CO2 Newsletter” article on glacial melt

Michiel van den Broeke, Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University (longer bio at end of post) very kindly agreed to read William Barbat’s article “Glacier melt: How soon? How fast?” and explain what Barbat got right (and wrong) and where the science has gone in the almost 50 years since then. It’s a brilliant (imo) piece, and I hope you learn as much as I did. Please do share it, comment on it.

Professor van den Broeke

In the March 1980 edition of the CO2 NEWSLETTER, William Barbat reported about the threat of melting ice sheets and the rapid, multi-metre sea level rise that could ensue. Undoubtedly, Barbat had been triggered by the 1978 scientific publication of British glaciologist John Mercer (1922-1987), then employed at (what would later become) the Byrd Polar Research Centre of Ohio State University (Mercer, 1978). In his Nature article: “West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster“, Mercer pointed out that the increase in CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels would result in strong Antarctic warming, potentially leading to the disintegration of the large Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves. In the absence of their buttressing effect, the West Antarctic ice sheet would collapse, raising global sea levels by several metres.

Today’s cryospheric research relies heavily on three complementary techniques: in situ observations, satellite observations and numerical models. In situ observations are often scattered in space, but to their credit have relatively long time series (typically decades in the Polar Regions), indispensable for trend detection. They moreover provide ground truth for satellites and serve to evaluate/calibrate climate and ice sheet models. Satellites, on the other hand, with their limited mission lifetime of typically 5-10 years, produce short time series, but they have the advantage of near-complete spatial coverage, filling in the spatial gaps left by the in situ observations. Numerical models, once evaluated and/or calibrated with the in situ and remotely sensed observations, can help us isolating the physical processes at work and, when they perform satisfactorily, make credible future projections.

When Mercer published his study almost 50 years ago, he had to make do with very limited observations and crude models. Although the density of in situ observations in the polar regions increased sharply after the 1957/58 International Geophysical Year (IGY, also referred to as the Third International Polar Year), observations remained very scarce notably in the ice sheet interiors. While some satellites for earth observation, notably Landsat, were available at that time, time series were less than a decade long. For Earth’s cryosphere, the satellite era started in earnest more than a decade later, with the launch of European Space Agency‘s radar-equipped ERS-1 in 1991. Finally, in the late 1970’s, climate and ice sheet models were still in their infancy; the model projections of future Antarctic warming used in Mercer’s study were from Syukuro Manabe, who in 2021 was co-awarded the Nobel prize in Physics for his pioneering contributions to climate modelling.

In spite of this, both Mercer’s 1978 Nature paper and William Barbat’s 1980 report in the CO2NEWSLETTER highlight the remarkable body of knowledge on the world’s ice sheets that had been gathered. Their reported total volume expressed in sea level rise equivalent of 66 m only deviates by 1% from today’s numbers1. Estimates of sea level stands of 6 m above present during the last interglacial (~125.000 years ago) fall well within the range of current estimates (6 to 9 m) (Dutton et al., 2015). Other remarkably accurate statements concern the approximately 50/50 partitioning of meltwater runoff and iceberg calving as sink terms in the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet and the importance of ice shelf buttressing for grounded ice flow in Antarctica, which decades later was observationally confirmed after the sudden disintegration of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002 (Scambos et al., 2004). Mercer also correctly identified the apparent temperature threshold for the viability of Antarctic ice shelves, later corroborated by the demise of Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves after several decades of strong warming (Morris & Vaughan, 2013; Scambos et al., 2004). Also recently been confirmed is Mercer’s statement that a 5 K atmospheric warming could destabilize parts of the large Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves (Van Wessem et al., 2023).

Inevitably, these early reports also have flaws and large uncertainties, which the authors frankly admit. Lacking direct observations, and realising that around 1980 mass changes of both ice sheets were significantly smaller than they are today (IMBIE, 2018, 2020), not much could be said about the magnitude of mass loss of the ice sheets, let alone the processes that caused them. It would take the launch in 2002 of the satellite pair of the Gravity Anomaly and Climate Experiment (GRACE) before mass loss from both ice sheets was convincingly demonstrated (Velicogna & Wahr, 2005; Velicogna, 2006). GRACE also showed that the recent mass loss in Antarctica is concentrated in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas sectors, and is associated with ice shelf thinning owing to increased ocean melting at their base, rather than weakened buttressing of the Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice shelves. Making projections based on scanty information proved even harder. Mercer’s assumption that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would double in 50 years was too pessimistic: atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 26%, from 337 to 426 parts per million, between 1979 and 2025. As a result, Antarctic warming remains far from the values reported in his paper.

This begs the question: if we were in Mercer’s shoes today, would we do much better in projecting the future of the Earth’s big ice sheets? Based on the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2021), my take is that the uncertainties are still surprisingly large and not so dissimilar to what they were in 1978. Since then, our knowledge and technical (observational, modelling) capabilities have of course expanded tremendously, but we have also identified numerous new unknowns. The net result is that future ice sheet mass change and associated sea level rise remain highly uncertain, and that we still may be in for unpleasant surprises from nonlinear processes leading to tipping points that are currently not or poorly understood. Given the complex interactions between atmosphere, ocean and ice sheets that straddle several orders of magnitude in temporal and spatial scales, it is clear that this deep uncertainty will not be resolved anytime soon. It thus seems fitting to conclude with the statement made by Mercer in his 1978 paper, which still firmly stands: “…despite the crudities and inadequacies of present techniques for modelling the climatic effects of increasing atmospheric CO2content and the resultant doubts […], we cannot afford to let the atmosphere carry out the experiment before taking action because if the results confirm the prognosis, and we should know one way or the other by the end of the century, it will be too late to remedy the situation…”.

Bibliography

Dutton, A., Carlson, A. E., Long, A. J., Milne, G. A., Clark, P. U., DeConto, R., Horton, B. P., Rahmstorf, S., & Raymo, M. E. (2015). SEA-LEVEL RISE. Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science, 349(6244), aaa4019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4019

IMBIE. (2018). Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017. Nature, 558(7709), 219-222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0179-y

IMBIE. (2020). Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018. Nature, 579(7798), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1855-2

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.

Mercer, J. H. (1978). West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster. Nature, 271(5643), 321–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/271321a0

Morris, E. M., & Vaughan, D. G. (2013). Spatial and Temporal Variation of Surface Temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula And The Limit of Viability of Ice Shelves. In Antarctic Peninsula Climate Variability: Historical and Paleoenvironmental Perspectives (pp. 61-68). https://doi.org/10.1029/AR079p0061

Scambos, T. A., Bohlander, J. A., Shuman, C. A., & Skvarca, P. (2004). Glacier acceleration and thinning after ice shelf collapse in the Larsen B embayment, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gl020670

Van Wessem, J. M., Van den Broeke, M. R., Wouters, B., & Lhermitte, S. (2023). Variable temperature thresholds of melt pond formation on Antarctic ice shelves. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01577-1

Velicogna, I., & Wahr, J. (2005). Greenland mass balance from GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl023955

Velicogna, I. a. J. W. (2006). Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica. Science, 311(5768), 1754-1756. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785

Footnotes

1 Combining radar flight lines of ice thickness with mass conservation provide us with accurate estimates of the sea level equivalent volumes of the ice sheets of Greenland (7.4 m) and Antarctica (57.8 m), (Morlighem et al., 2017; Morlighem et al., 2019).

Michiel van den Broeke (Rotterdam, 1968) has been Professor of Polar Meteorology at Utrecht University since 2008, where he studies the interaction between the climate and the large ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Between 2016 and 2022, Michiel served as Scientific Director of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht (IMAU), where around 90 people work on developing a fundamental understanding of all components of the climate system.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

C02 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 3 (Feb 1980) – “the problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions.”

The third edition of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

The eight page issue has a front page story on the Greenland ice sheet and sea level rise (and a full page analysis on page 3 “Glacial icemelt? How soon? How Fast?”

There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers, excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “the cost of halting the CO2 buildup.”

It remains heart-breaking, of course. Barbat’s editorial begins

“The new decade begins on an optimistic note as the CO2 greenhouse problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions. Also this particular environmental issue may unite former adversaries in a common effort. “

Barbat had switched on to environmental problems over a decade earlier, including carbon dioxide build-up. In 1979 he started the Newsletter. It was intended to fill a

“communications gap by capsulizing both the published and unpublished reports on the CO2 problem which are deemed important. This newsletter will also publish original material. invited articles. and letters of inquiry, fact and opinion.”

Each 8 page Newsletter had a lead story, an editorial, excerpts of recent documents (reports, newspaper articles, scientific abstracts, testimony by scientists to Congressional hearings) and deeply researched and argued articles by Barbat about a range of issues. Most issues had feedback from readers.

Categories
1979 CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter Barbat articles Deforestation

Will impacts remain for one generation or thirty?  ‘Tropical Deforestation’ issue seeks the answer

Below is the text of an article by William Barbat, in the second issue of his CO2 Newsletter, published in December 1979. I’ve added hyperlinks and references.

How fast can the ocean waters and other natural sinks take up the CO2 produced by man? This question has been the center of heated controversy which occupied a large share of the Dahlem (Berlin) Conference on ‘Global Chemical Cycles’ in 1976 and ERDA’s Miami Beach Workshop on the ‘Global Effects of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels Combustion’ in 1977.

One school of thought holds that man-created CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere at a rapid rate – possibly as high as 6% per year – once man’s outpourings of CO2 have ceased. If so, any legacy of a CO2-induced climate change would be short-lived except possibly for any destruction of icecaps that has taken place before a CO2~induced warming ended. Natural uptake of CO2 this fast would essentially relegate the CO2 problem to a reversible status similar in certain respects to smoke pollution and acid rain. Also, the contributions to the CO2 build-up due to fossil-fuel consumption by people in the United States (which comprise 5% of the world’s total population) in such a case figures to be 12% of the overall atmospheric build-up rather than 24%.

The leading advocate of this rapid-uptake hypothesis is biologist George Woodwell of Woods Hole. Woodwell’s position is based on his estimate that the cutting and burning of forests (essentially for farm-clearing in the tropics) is currently a major source of CO2 – possibly as much as 20 to 100 percent of that released by the burning of fossil fuels. Woodwell’s estimate of the deforestation rate is not based on hard data, but is projected from very limited statistical samplings, which statistics have also been interpreted by some others as showing a slight increase in forest biomass.

The opposing school of thought holds that uptake by the oceans is very slow and depends on the turnover rate of undersaturated deep ocean waters, which is of the order of 1000 years. If true, then as man’s cumulative output of CO2 exceeds certain threshold values to cause impacts such as a decrease in agricultural productivity, a decrease in marine habitat cause icecaps to become unstable, these impacts would become irreversible for many generations to come. Also the slow uptake carries the implication that the highly industrialized nations bear most of the responsibility for the CO2 buildup rather than sharing it almost equally with farmers in the tropics.

The slow uptake view is shared by the geophysicists, geochemists and ocean scientists who have made extensive studies of the world’s overall carbon budget. Notable among this group are Wallace S. Broecker, Taro Takahashi, and associates of Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory and Columbia University, C.D. Keeling and associates of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Minze Stuiver of University of Washington, and H. Oeschger and U. Siegenthaler of Switzerland.

An article published in Science 26 October 1979 by Broecker and his associates notes that “several versions of recent atmosphere-ocean models appear to give reliable and mutually consistent estimates for carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans calling for a modest increase in the size of the terrestrial biosphere order to achieve a balance in the carbon budget.” These workers further provide hard data on the distribution of carbon isotopes between various carbon reservoirs which provide constraints on the size of the known carbon reservoirs. The authors also note that Woodwell rapid uptake hypothesis and deforestation estimate demands that between one third and one-half of all the tropical forest would have disappeared in the last two decades, which should be more readily apparent if true. (Projected at a constant rate per year rather than at the exponential rate of growth exhibited by the CO2 buildup, one notes that Woodwell’s hypothesized deforestation rate would result in complete elimination of’ tropical forest cover in two or three more decades.) In resolving the apparent carbon budget contradiction, Broeckerl’s group concluded that “regrowths of previously cut forests and enhancement of forest growth resulting from excess CO2 the atmosphere have probably roughly balanced the rate of forest destruction during the past few decades.”

While the controversy over deforestation and ocean uptake is not yet settled to everyone’s satisfaction, majority scientific opinion seems to strongly favor the slow-uptake school of thought. With slow uptake by oceans, there is no safe allowable rate of CO2 output which could prevent temperature thresholds from being reached. Rather every single contribution of CO2 is likely to have a long-lasting effect. Acceptance of the slow uptake theory shifts the social concern from slowing the rate of CO2 production to limiting the total amount of CO2 produced from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Citation: Barbat, W. 1979. Will impacts remain for one generation or thirty?  ‘Tropical Deforestation’ issue seeks the answer. CO2 Newsletter, Vol 1. No. 2 p. 3

Annotations:

This is vintage Barbat – the ability to synthesise a large amount of information, summarise ongoing scientific debates in clear and judicious language. It looks easy, but then playing tennis like Roger Federer looks easy.

The Broecker article is  Fate of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Budget | Science

W S Broecker, T Takahashi, H J Simpson, T H Peng. 1979. Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget Oct 26;206(4417):409-18. doi: 10.1126/science.206.4417.409.

The Dahlem Conference was this – Global chemical cycles and their alterations by man : report of the Dahlem Workshop on Global Chemical Cycles and their Alterations by Man, Berlin 1976, November 15-19

Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter commentary

“An air of hopefulness and conviction that now feels enviable” – Dr Abi Perrin on the C02 Newsletter Vol . 1, no.2

From 1979 to 1982 American geologist William N. Barbat published 18 issues of the CO2 Newsletter. His family have kindly supplied copies and given permission for these to be digitised and shared. Every three weeks or so, an issue will be uploaded. To accompany each issue there will be a brief commentary. For the second issue, Dr Abi Perrin (see interview here) has written with her customary clarity, insight and honesty.

Dr Abi Perrin

The second installment of William Barbat’s CO2 newsletter continues his mission to “aid enlightenment on the CO2 problem, to promote constructive and timely solutions, to reduce disagreement and to encourage cooperation”. It expands on the warnings distilled in the first issue and continues to cut through the noise of scientific discussions ongoing at the time, summarising them succinctly and effectively. 

Barbat brings the role of ecosystems such as forests and oceans into focus, turning attention to the attractive idea that natural carbon sinks could “relegate the CO2 problem to a reversible status”. Detailing how a growing consensus amongst scientists was unfortunately not so optimistic, he surmises that “there is no safe allowable rate of CO2 output which could prevent temperature thresholds from being reached. Rather every single contribution of CO2 is likely to have a long-lasting effect.” 

With an air of hopefulness and conviction that now feels enviable, Barbat seems confident that the dawn of the 1980s would be an inflection point, stating that his newsletter intends to be “informative of an impending revolutionary change to leaders in government and industry.”  He celebrates the presentation of a report (an “impartial examination of the validity of CO2 forecasts”) to President Carter’s science adviser as a moment of progress: the next step towards the consideration of global warming in US energy policy. 

Amidst optimism, he is not blind to some of the hurdles on the route to action and change. “The revolutionary energy policies which are now being considered by the scientific community to bring the CO2 buildup to an early halt would require much more cooperation between government and business than appears to exist”, he acknowledges. In his discussions of carbon sinks and their capacity (or lack thereof) to reverse the “CO2 problem” he seems to realise how alluring the more convenient or comforting ‘interpretations’ of the science can be, in a way that feels prescient of many of the popular narratives that have delayed necessary accountability and action to this day. 

Looking back from 2026, a time where a rapid worldwide transition to renewable power is considered feasible and highly cost-effective, Barbat’s skepticism about the future of wind and solar is one thing that ages his writing. But perhaps the biggest is this: “Fortunately, the CO2 problem has not become an adversary issue. This issue is being treated rationally in the scientific community, in the news media, and in politics.”  He identifies apathy as a problem – that’s still with us, but 46 years later we also have to contend with widespread, mounting adversariality and irrationality. In recent months we’ve seen not just denial but effective censorship of basic climate science in the US, while in UK newspapers the volume of editorials attacking climate action overtook those supporting it.  Meanwhile global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise defiantly, we continue to trash the lands and oceans that buffer us from even-more-deadly impacts, and announcements that we have passed specific points-of-no-return receive little attention. 

There were many passages and statements in this newsletter that are frustrating and depressing by virtue of their relevance and repetition ever since. Lurking in one of the ‘Excerpts from recent reports’ was this one: “The problem facing us today is this: When should the studying stop and political action begin?” To see this kind of sentiment expressed a decade before I was born, 30 years before I cheerfully embarked on a career in scientific research, felt especially jarring. A very similar question motivated my exit from academia: was I describing a dying world at the expense of acting to protect it?

Reading these CO2 newsletters caused me to ask myself another uncomfortable question, about the communication work I’m involved with now: am I replicating the approach Barbat and others took for decades, but expecting different results? Concerted action on climate and nature must be empowered and underpinned by knowledge, but even with deadly impacts on our doorstep we cannot put our faith in awareness alone leading to proportionate, rational responses. 

See also a commentary on the first issue by Professor Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Universities of Manchester (UK) and Uppsala (Sweden).

I have a list of people I am inviting to provide commentaries (you may be on it – nominate yourselves or other people!) I would send a pdf of the relevant issue and you read it then write (or draw? make a video? a song?) 600-900 words in response, to be published just after the issue goes up.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe” – C02 Newsletter, Vol. 1, no. 2 editorial

The eighteen issues of the CO2 Newsletter, published between 1979 and 1982 by American geologist William Barbat are heart-breakers. Here, laid out in plain language, buttressed by the latest research, were almost all of our dilemmas. Alongside publishing the 18 issues through the course of the year, and inviting various people to write commentaries, I’ll be putting up the editorials, selections from the “excerpts of recent reports” and at least one of the deeply-researched articles Barbat wrote per issue (often there were two).

First up, the editorial from Vol 1. no. 2, December 1979.

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe” – H.G. Wells

Editorial

The CO2 Newsletter’s editorial goals are to aid enlightenment on the CO2 problem, to promote constructive and timely solutions, to reduce disagreement and to encourage cooperation.

The many persons who continue to send articles are to be thanked for their contribution toward enlightenment. Ideas for constructive solutions are just now being formed as the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds. While scientist disagreement is declining with the acquisition of new data, much disagreement exists in the political world over what national energy policy should be and what should be the role of industrial establishments in carrying it out. The revolutionary energy policies which are now being considered by the scientific community to bring the CO2 buildup to an early halt would require much more cooperation between government and business than appears to exist. Unwarranted hostility and intolerance directed towards energy companies for political gain make it difficult to address the CO2 problem effectively and early.

American businesses have not been wholly oblivious to the CO2 problem in the past. In a well-researched comprehensive report on the environmental aspects of energy production published nearly a decade ago (May 1970) in the Westinghouse Engineer James H. Wright noted that the CO2 buildup should be given consideration as a serious environmental concern.

Corporations which have diverted income from oil revenues to the production of nuclear fuels have come under political attack for attempting to monopolize energy production, when that is the least likely motive. The costly Barnwell nuclear-fuel reprocessing plant has not been allowed to operate after apparently receiving governmental approval while the investments were being made. Well-meaning detractors have been able to delay construction of nuclear plants, and rate commissions often have shifted the heavy financial burden of the delays solely to the utility owners

At this stage, recriminations would be counterproductive. We would be wise to learn from past mistakes and close ranks to prepare for the difficult task of halting the CO2 buildup.

Citation: Barbat, W. (1979) “Editorial” CO2 Newsletter, Vol. 1, No 2, p. 2

Further reading and viewing

Barnwell – the song by Gil Scott-Heron!

Gil Scott Heron – South Carolina (Barnwell)

Wright, J. 1970. Electric Power Generation and the Environment. Westinghouse Engineer. May, pp.66-80. Westinghouse-Engineer-1970-05.pdf

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 2 – “the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds”

By December 1979 the editor of the CO2 Newsletter, American geologist William Barbat, was on a roll, and optimistic. In his editorial for the second Newsletter whe wrote

“The many persons who continue to send articles are to be thanked for their contribution toward enlightenment. Ideas for constructive solutions are just now being formed as the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds. While scientist disagreement is declining with the acquisition of new data, much disagreement exists in the political world over what national energy policy should be and what should be the role of industrial establishments in carrying it out.”

The issue contains feedback from readers of the first issue, including scientists and politicians. There’s a one page article on deforestation, a whole lot of “excerpts from recent reports”

In a closing article titled “Energy alternatives to meet projected demands,” Barbat made the crucial point that

“… the CO2 problem has no outspoken champions and no legislative lobby. Nor does the CO2 issue serve conveniently as a rallying cause for activism.“

I will be creating separate posts about some of the contents of this issue. Meanwhile you can download the pdf (and see plain text) here.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter commentary

“A species capable of extraordinary insight, yet seemingly incapable of acting in its own long-term interest”: Professor Kevin Anderson on the C02 Newsletter

Professor Kevin Anderson

From 1979 to 1982 American geologist William N. Barbat published 18 issues of the CO2 Newsletter. His family have kindly supplied copies and given permission for these to be digitised and shared. Every three weeks or so, an issue will be uploaded. To accompany each issue there will be a brief commentary. First up, Professor Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Universities of Manchester (UK) and Uppsala (Sweden).

In the first edition of William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter, he translates specialist climate research into accessible language, tracing the unchecked rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide, its primary cause in fossil fuel combustion, and its likely consequences, including “impending famine and social and political upheaval.” The edition offers a measured snapshot of contemporary understanding, written to “fill the communications gap” and inform the public and policymakers; all premised on the hopeful belief that knowledge would prompt action.

In the closing section of the Newsletter, Barbat turns to his two principal “solutions”, both aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminating fossil fuel use: constraining the growth of energy demand and the rapid deployment of nuclear power. Yet more significant than these, is the social and political context he sees as essential for any rational response. “Empathy and trust must be restored between politicians, administrators, businessmen[sic], and activist groups if the CO2 buildup is to be halted in timely fashion … When heated arguments give way to cool logic, we find that the overall goals of conservationists, humanists, and industrialists actually converge to represent the desires … of a fully enlightened public.” For Barbat, reason, cooperation, and compassion are not optional add-ons; they are prerequisites for action at the necessary scale.

Barbat’s calm, almost reassuring tone sits in stark contrast to the severity of his conclusions. He warns that “Nothing short of revolutionary changes in energy production and usage appear capable of averting the adverse impacts which are expected.” He is equally unambiguous about the dangers of delay: “If we wait to let the atmosphere perform the carbon dioxide experiment, … it will be too late to do much about it”. He frames the issue as a moral one: “If we harbor any sense of responsibility toward preserving spaceship Earth, and toward the welfare of our progeny, we can scarcely afford to leave the carbon dioxide problem to the next generation.”

Yet here we are in 2026. We have pumped an additional 1.5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (from fossil fuels and land use) and the combustion of oil, gas and even coal continue their seemingly relentless rise. Instead of “empathy and trust” we have chosen delusion, misinformation and lies. Worse still, this failure has spread into expert communities, where magical thinking is increasingly invoked to prop up an unstable status quo or is quietly endorsed through collective silence. The laws of physics, however, remain unmoved by rhetoric or omission.

Since the Newsletter’s publication, humanity has become extraordinarily adept at observing and quantifying the world it is reshaping. With increasing accuracy, we can measure, model, and project the climate system, supported by ever more sensitive instruments, richer datasets, and stronger scientific confidence. Yet this growing clarity has not led to restraint or correction. Instead, it has coincided with a profound inability to act on the damage we fully understand and knowingly accelerate, paralysed not by ignorance, but by convenience, power, and habit.

This is the defining contradiction of our age: a species capable of extraordinary insight, yet seemingly incapable of acting in its own long-term interest. Whether this failure is a temporary lapse or a terminal condition remains unresolved. History, and geology, will render the verdict. Humanity may yet prove itself resilient and adaptive. Or we may simply degrade into a genetic cul-de-sac: a brief, unmistakable stratum in the fossil record, marking a civilisation that could chart its own collapse with exquisite precision, issue increasingly urgent warnings to itself, and still choose, again and again, not to listen.

I have a list of people I am inviting to provide commentaries (you may be on it – nominate yourselves or other people!) I would send a pdf of the relevant issue and you read it then write (or draw? make a video? a song?) 600-900 words in response, to be published just after the issue goes up.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1 no. 1 (Oct 1979) is live!

The first edition of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live!

You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

Barbat had switched on to environmental problems over a decade earlier, including carbon dioxide build-up. In 1979 he started the Newsletter. It was intended to fill a

“communications gap by capsulizing both the published and unpublished reports on the CO2 problem which are deemed important. This newsletter will also publish original material. invited articles. and letters of inquiry, fact and opinion.”

Each 8 page Newsletter had a lead story, an editorial, excerpts of recent documents (reports, newspaper articles, scientific abstracts, testimony by scientists to Congressional hearings) and deeply researched and argued articles by Barbat about a range of issues. Most issues had feedback from readers.

The 18 Newsletters are heart-breaking and enraging because it is clear that by the late 1970s many scientists knew what was coming, but they – and Barbat – were not able to get enough other people to take it seriously (sound familiar?)

I will be releasing the Newsletters on roughly 3 week cycles through the year, and also blogging about specific aspects of each newsletter between these release dates.

Please give me feedback, even if it is merely typos you’ve found in the html versions of the pdfs

Finally, a thank you to the member of the late William N. Barbat’s family who very kindly supplied copies of the Newsletter, their time to answer questions and also permission for these wonderful (and, again, heart-breaking) documents to be shared.