Category: IPCC

Categories
IPCC Renewable energy

May 12, 2011 – IPCC Special report on Renewable Energy Sources

Fifteen years ago, on this day, May 12th, 2011,

The IPCC has published the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN). On Monday, the summary for policymakers of the SRREN has been approved by government representatives for IPCC member countries at the 11th Session of Working Group III co-chaired by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

2011 IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources May 12th, 2011

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was renewable energy as a substitute for fossil fuels. Because of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions had been spoken of for many years. There had been various mostly inadequate, all of them mostly inadequate, some of them entirely inadequate schemes to promote renewables. 

Meanwhile, in 1990 the IPCC had delivered its First Assessment Report. Since then, it had delivered various other reports on mitigation technologies, etc, etc. 

The specific context was that it was very clear that the global response to climate was going to be net zero. The Copenhagen deal accord, which was supposed to replace Kyoto, had been useless, and so if you were bothering to read in 2011 a report about the importance of renewable energy, well, good luck to you. 

And of course, these reports don’t/can’t really anticipate non linear-growth and when renewables are going to kick in. So you have the over-supply of solar PV by Chinese factories. You have the enormous growth in offshore wind, and official reports about how long energy demand will continue to grow and how slow the uptake of renewables will be are always it seems overtaken by events.

What I think we can learn from this. We are a dumb species, for all our technology.

What happened next. Renewables finally kicked in in the 2020s. If you get a magnifying glass you might even see the impact on the Keeling Curve, the only measure that matters.

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: 

May 12, 1971 – Swedish protest against the culling of Stockholm trees (the “Elm Conflict”) – All Our Yesterdays

May 12, 1974 – an early dose of Hydrogen Hope/Hype

May 12, 1989 – USA says it will, after all, support the idea of a #climate treaty

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing this.

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 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage IPCC

September 22, 2005 – IPCC CCS special report

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2005, 

IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage 22-24 September 2005

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from the late 1990s CCS had come onto the radar of policymakers, since if the Kyoto Protocol were to come into force, then rich nations would have to reduce emissions. CCS might, they thought, be a convenient (if not cheap) way of meeting these obligations.

The specific context was that pro-CCS scientists and technologists had lobbied successfully for the IPCC to produce one of its “Special Reports.”

What I think we can learn from this – every new technology, even (especially the Unicorntech) needs big fat reports with hundreds of footnotes to make it seem real and safe.

What happened next – CCS has been through repeated hype cycles.  God help us all.

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: 

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed 

Categories
Australia IPCC

 May 28, 1990 – “Global Warming is really here” (IPCC First Assessment Report)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 28th, 1990, the Canberra Times reports on the report of Working Group 1 (the science bit) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mussared, D. 1990. Global warming is really here: UN.  Canberra Times, May 28, page 11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC had been agreed in 1988, with pressure from the United States Government, which was keen to avoid a repeat of the ozone issue, where uncontrollable scientists had “bounced” (in the perception of politicians and state functionaries) governments into action. It was not a precedent they wanted reinforced, so the IPCC was set up to head off things like the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases….

The IPCC was asked to produce reports in November 1988 and did so in record time. The Working Group 1 report was presented to Thatcher’s cabinet by John Houghton, head of the Met Office and head of Working Group 1.

What I think we can learn from this. The politicians were briefed. It is not a question of whether they knew enough. They did.

What happened next. The negotiations for a climate treaty were deformed by resistance from the United States, the Gulf states and then Australia. No targets and timetables were set for emissions reductions by rich countries. The IPCC sank into a routine of producing special reports as requested and assessment reports on a five or seven year cycle.

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: 

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity”  – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Germany IPCC UNFCCC

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, April 8th, 1995, Fred Pearce of the New Scientist points out that there is a gamble going on (as did Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman three years earlier).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619720-300-world-lays-odds-on-global-catastrophe/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first COP had just finished. Rich nations had been resisting emissions cuts using scientific uncertainty as their final excuse. But Swedish scientist Bert Bolin, who had been banging on about climate change, and carbon dioxide build up since 1958, at the latest, was telling them that the IPCC Second Assessment Report would be out later this year and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to use the uncertainty card for very much longer, more or less.

What I think we can learn from this is that the really sharp battles at the end of 1995, were all about that. I hadn’t quite grokked that before.

What happened next

Well, there were really sharp battles at the end of ‘95. From the middle of ‘95 efforts by denialists to smear individual scientists (the “Serengeti Strategy”) and the process in order to slow progress towards a serious protocol.

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 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
IPCC Swtizerland

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 9, 1988, the director of the United Nations Environment Program, the Egyptian scientist Mostafa Tolba, gave a stark opening address at the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Tolba, M.: 1988, ‘Warming: Warning’, Opening Speech at the First Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, November 9.

Oreskes and Conway 2010, page 184

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the IPCC had been set up after negotiations, especially with the Americans. They wanted an intergovernmental panel that was frankly dependent, because they didn’t want to get “bounced” in the way they perceived they had been over the question of Ozone, by Bob Watson and his ilk (including Tolba).

What I think we can learn from this is that the institutional settings the terms of reference, who’s going to fund what, who’s going to deliver what and how matter.

What happened next

The IPCC delivered its first assessment report in 1990. Was attacked (see Ted Benton in the Greening of Machiavelli anecdote about Sundsvall).

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
IPCC Science

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 2, 1990, scientists who had been involved in the pre-IPCC “Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases” were trying to see if they could get funding (they couldn’t, and the caravan had moved on).

“In November 1990 he wrote to WMO asking that ‘the AGGG should be either abolished or established on a formal financial basis with a clearly defined role’ (Dooge, 1990). There was no response and the AGGG was neither abolished nor given a continuation of its mandate. In Dooge’s words ‘it was death by starvation’.”

In Agrawala, S. (1999). Early science–policy interactions in climate change: lessons from the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. Global Environmental Change, 9(2), 157-169.
Chicago

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC had released its first report in August 1990 (it had been preemptively criticised by Greenpeace as inadequate). It wasn’t clear that the IPCC would necessarily go on and on as we know – so this letter about continuing to fund the AGGG was not as bizarre as it seems

The AGGG had been set up after the pivotal meeting in Villach in September 1985, as an attempt to get decent scientific information under everyone’s noses. It’s the kind of thing that pissed off the Departments of State and Energy and got the Americans kiboshing things, to control process.

What I think we can learn from this

We should remember that the IPCC was a compromise. It has obviously done great work, but we should never forget that it was created the way it was because that’s what the Americans wanted. And on that occasion the Americans were able to prevail…

What happened next

 The AGGG died for lack of money, and the existence of a big shiny alternative.

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
Denial IPCC

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 30, 1996, Fred Seitz, energetic and lunatic denialist, tries to smear the IPCC, focussing on one particular scientist, Ben Santer

“This controversial issue also resulted in two letters (dated 30 May and 26 June), being sent to me, one from the Global Climate Coalition (John Schlaes) and the other from The Climate Council (Donald Pearlman). Copies of these were also sent to ten key members of the US Congress as well as the Advisor for Science and Technology and Assistant to the US President (John Gibson), and the Assistant Secretary of State (Eileen Clausen).”

Bolin 2007, page 130

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition was in full beast mode, trying to attack specifically Ben Santer. And as one of the authors of the lead authors of a particular chapter of the IPCC’s second assessment report (which said that there was evidence of a discernible impact of man’s activities on the climate). Almost 30 years later, it’s not really regarded as controversial. But this was the first statement of the IPCC to that effect. And the Global Climate Coalition was wanting to try to stop it or failing that, send a warning to other scientists. Let’s try and chill the debate or slow it down.

What I think we can learn from this

This is an age-honoured tactic, that you shoot messengers and hang the body on a gibbet with a sign that says “This is what happens if you open your big fucking mouth”. It was ever thus. And having it come from multiple sources, and be distributed to lots of people is also standard – makes a lot of noise, kicks up a lot of dust and dirt…

What happened next was that someone at the Wall Street Journal probably got a copy of that letter because a few days later, there was an editorial smearing Santer.

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.

See also –

Excerpt from Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt https://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/

Fred Pearce interview with Ben Santer, 2010…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness

Categories
Denial IPCC Science Scientists United States of America

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 1, 1998, American climate scientist Michael Mann’s paper about temperatures during the last thousand years was released.

http://www.desmog.uk/2015/04/04/how-creation-mann-s-hockey-stick-led-counter-attack-climate-deniers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in 1995/6 said that there had already been a discernible impact of human activity on the climate. This enraged the denialists, who were looking for new scientists and science to attack.  Michael Mann’s work, which was clearly going to end up in the Third Assessment Report (published in 2001) was one such target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are always looking for targets, and what they perceive to be easy ones – what Mann has since dubbed ‘The Serengeti Strategy’.

What happened next

It properly kicked off, with endless attacks on Mann, lawsuits back and forth. You can read the Wikipedia page here.  The science was robust.

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

Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1999), “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations” (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 26 (6): 759–762, Bibcode:1999GeoRL..26..759M, doi:10.1029/1999GL900070

see also

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167127-why-the-hockey-stick-graph-will-always-be-climate-sciences-icon/

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage IPCC

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 19 2003, carbon capture and storage got another nudge forward, at least in terms of rhetoric…

19 to 21 Feb 2003 As discussed earlier, the 2002 Geneva meeting produced a plan for an exploratory workshop on the issue, which took place in November 2002 in Regina, Canada. The actual process of report preparation began after the formal decision to compile the report, made at the IPCC meeting in February 2003 in Paris.

(Narita, 2012: 90)

https://archive.ipcc.ch/meetings/session20/final-report.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

In the aftermath of the President George “The Supreme Court got me the gig” Bush having pulled the USA out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, attention turned to various techno-fixes, including Carbon Capture and Storage, which had been in the background/on the drawing board for a decade plus.

Longer term context – some had clearly been eyeing the deep oceans as places to dump waste, and this had gotten the ‘right’ scientists curious…

“Second, ocean mixing. Here too Revelle had a long-established curiosity, and here too nuclear energy pushed the topic forward. The wastes from nuclear reactors must be disposed of somewhere, and the ocean floor seemed a likely choice. In 1955 when Revelle spoke of studying ocean circulation he emphasized the need to bury the “unbelievable quantities of radioactive substances” expected to pour from civilian reactors…”

Weart 1997 342

What I think we can learn from this

Dreams of technological salvation are very popular, but always need someone to write them.  And the money to pay those people to write those fantasies has to come from somewhere…

What happened next

The IPCC’s special report on CCS came out in early 2005, and was  a very big deal – an example of the halo effect of the credibility of impact science being lent to production science.  But the CCS plants have still not yet been built, and the ones that did were all about Enhanced Oil “Recovery”.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.