Category: Science

Categories
Science

November 17, 2023 – two degrees warmer, for the first time…

One year ago, on this day, November 17th, 2023, the globe was, according to one data set, two degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels for the first time in human history.

We now have results from a modern reanalysis product (ERA5) that shows November 17th was in fact the first day the world has experienced that was 2C above the preindustrial (1850-1900) average. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 423ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

A year ago today, we broke two degrees for the first time. 

At time of writing (or narrating) this in December 2023 it looks like a pretty sure bet that those temperature records will fall again, because we have an El Nino year on the way, and our emissions are higher. And we are about to get seriously smacked between the eyes. As Matt Damon, as Jason Bourne, said to the journalist at Waterloo, “you have no idea what you’re into”.

And as of November 2024 – yeah,the El Nino ended but the tempatures did not come down as some expected. Have a look at this

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/opinion/climate-change-heat-planet.html

[I will update this post closer to the time that I will also leave this text in. It’s the safest predictions I’ve made. I will be astounded if we don’t break that record.]

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: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Science

November 12,1976 – “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” in Science

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1976, an article appears in the journal Science.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more articles were getting published in especially Science more than Nature, because there was a proper research effort going on in the United States. And that was not the case in the United Kingdom.

What we learn is long before 1981 when Hansen got wrapped over the knuckles for telling the truth to a journalist, Walter Sullivan at the New York Times, Hansen was telling it like it was. It’s almost 50 years later now. And things have only gotten so much worse. 

What happened next. We were warned. We knew. Not enough of us could look into the abyss and also figure out how to do responsible citizenship in sustainable ways. And here we are.

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: 

November 12, 1999 – John Howard and mates say “nope” to renewables

November 12, 2012 – Greenpeace smeared by Queensland extractors, of course

Categories
Science United States of America

October 22, 1969 – American Meteorological Society symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wisconsin

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 1969,

AMS Symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wis., 22 October 1969.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that President Lyndon Johnson had made his special address to Congress in early 1965. It had included a short section (from Roger Revelle) about CO2 buildup. And were things going to get hotter or colder and no one knew for sure. So it’s logical that the American Meteorological Society would want to hold a seminar on the future of climate. One of the people present was Canadian scientist Kenneth Hare, who had been at a Guy Callendar’s talk in 1938 at the Royal Meteorological Society. And in his talk at this seminar, Hare talked about CO2 as one potential issue. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1960s, people in the know were beginning to take note…

What happened next The issue was ‘there’ in the lead up to Stockholm, but there was not the hard evidence yet. By the late 1970s, it was obvious to anyone with intellectual integrity that there was a serious problem ahead (but ‘ahead’ might mean another thirty years).

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

Hare, F.K. 1971. Future climates and future environments
F. Kenneth Hare Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 52, No. 6 (June 1971), pp. 451-456 (6 pages)

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

Categories
Energy Science

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published

Fifty years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1974,

Alvin Weinberg, ‘Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy’, Science 186 (18 October 1974), 205. Weinberg wrote that the world might reach ‘climatological limits’ within 30–50 years. Noting the uncertainty surrounding the results so far, he called for two responses. ‘First, climatologists should recognize the profound implications of this question and do the basic research in global modelling … so that, say 20 years from now, we can base our energy policy on a much sounder understanding of this limit than we now possess’; and, second, since the ‘problem of global effects of energy production, like….’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United Nations Environment Programme had been going for a couple of years, since the Stockholm conference. Science had been publishing articles, Weinberg had been paying attention. The modelling conference had just finished in Sweden. Weinberg as a big fan of nuclear thought that this was another selling point for nuclear – that its carbon emissions were so much lower.

What we learn why it matters is that the pro nuclear gloss on climate mitigation has been around for a long time. Weinberg was a serious player. 

What happened next? Well, in 1979, Weinberg visited Australia and gave a speech which got reported in the Canberra Times and so forth. It explicitly mentioned nuclear as a climate solution. And again, that puts into context; what I thought was unusual in 1981 of the various Liberal and Country Party Senators talking about it was not that big a deal. People knew by the early 1980s, people knew who were paying any real attention.

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: 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
Austria Economics of mitigation Energy Science

October 13, 1993 – IIASA and the IAMs – Gaia help us all

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 13th, 1993,

Nebojša Nakićenović, William Nordhaus, Richard Richels and Ferenc Toth, Integrative Assessment of Mitigation, Impacts, and Adaptation to Climate Change, Proceedings of a Workshop Held on 13–15 Oct. 1993 (Laxenburg: IIASA, 1993)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was tha the cold war -scientist shall talk unto scientist’ outfit the International Institute for Advanced Science Analysis (IIASA) was about 20 years old. It had a surprisingly long history of banging on about climate change and energy, back to 1975, with William Nordhaus and then Hafele’s energy studies. And they put together some workshops. And they were big fans of all their fancy computer models: really in love with them. 

What we learn.  And here we are 30 years later. And they just keep redrawing lines and magic shit into existence. Making heroic assumptions about the speed of development and deployment of offshore wind and hydrogen and so forth, bearing no resemblance to the real world. But how are you gonna make the numbers add up? 

So we’re trapped in these ridiculous mental models and computer models, because we don’t tell the truth to ourselves about ourselves. That we screwed the pooch and is it no one’s short-term career interest to be the one who says “hey guys, I think we screwed the pooch.” You are not going to get promoted – in fact, you’re not going to keep your bloody job full stop if you do that…

What happened next so I’m sure that in 1993 there were people with misgivings. They didn’t speak up. I’m sure that there were other people who had misgivings in 2003, didn’t speak up. 2013 didn’t speak up. 2023 didn’t speak up. Why would you? 

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: 

October 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

October 8, 1958 – “CO2 has begun to come home, hasn’t it?”

Sixty-six years ago today (October 8th, 1958) British meteorologist Gordon Manley wrote to his friend, steam engineer Guy Callendar, who had – for the past twenty-plus years had been banging on about carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere as a (or even the) factor affecting the climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was happening. More people were coming on board with the carbon dioxide theory, Gilbert Plass, GER Deakin, Appleton, etc. And Manley was congratulating Guy Callendar bless. 

What we learn is that Guy Callendar was getting a little bit of recognition and was getting published still in journals like Tellus and so forth. But he wasn’t being carried through the streets on people’s shoulders, as perhaps he should have been. Such is the nature of humanity when the wrong person making the announcement, if you’re Miss Triggs. 

What we learn is that you can be right and not get the credit you deserve. That’s one of the oldest stories in the book. 

What happened next Callendar had a couple of more really astute observations in him about, for example, why theories aren’t popular, and so forth. And he died in 1964, 37 years to the day after Svante Arrhenius died. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

CP 1, Gordon Manley to Callendar, 8 October 1958, cited in Fleming, 2007

Also on this day: 

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

October 8, 1988 – Aussie poet and activist Judith Wright in final speech, warns of environmental problems ahead…

Categories
Science

October 4, 1957 – see, see – SPUTNIK!!

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1957,

1957 – Space Race: Launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth. Science budget up etc

Science Budget through the roof

Onion Our Dumb Century

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at the end of World War Two, there had been an unseemly scramble between the Soviets and the Americans as to who could hoover up more and better German rocket scientists. And the Americans probably thought they were on their way; the Nazis had their reputations cleansed as part of Operation Paperclip. The Soviets didn’t have to bother with PR quite so much – one advantage of the Stalinist dictatorship. And then on the fourth of October, everyone got to take them by surprise, because a small metal ball was launched into space Beep, beep beep. 

What we learn what/why this matters, The broader context was that the International Geophysical Year was happening. The Americans had kind of assumed that they were going to get the first satellite into space and start taking measurements of stuff. Their self-image was badly dented. They started throwing serious money at science education and the President’s Scientific Advisory Council was created and that had important implications. It was an important venue for Roger Revelle in 1964, when he was writing about environmental pollution.

What happened next, the Americans continued freaking out about control of space. And also weather modification is a major part of the story in money getting allocated to research that, ironically, would show that weather modification, deliberate weather modification, was not so easy. And inadvertent weather modification was happening all along. But then they’d already been told that by Gilbert Plass in 1953, and had decided not to listen to him, I guess…

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: 

October 4, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

September 20, 1848 – the AAAS is born…

One hundred and seventy six years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1848,

1848 – The American Association for the Advancement of Science is created.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science was created on September 20, 1848, at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was a reformation of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists with the broadened mission to be the first permanent organization to promote science and engineering nationally and to represent the interests of American researchers from across all scientific fields

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 275ishppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that science was coming along in leaps and bounds, even in the United States of America. You can read the Wikipedia page about it here.

What we learn is that putting together these sorts of bodies is a tremendous amount of hard work, clever politicking. You have to scramble for funds. You’ve got to allay the concerns of people who feel that a bureaucracy has been created or that their own baileywick is being stomped on. And the benefits are not always self-evident, and it could go badly wrong. See that Machiavelli quote about innovation. But anyway, it happened. Its journal Science started to be published in 1880.

What happened next? AAAS was a crucial node in science as you’d hope it would be obviously distinct from the National Academies of Science and the American Meteorological Society and the National Research Council and all the rest of it though there is inevitably circulation of staff and ideas and people 

In the 100th year of the AAAS as the English biologist G Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned CO2 build up at a seminar organised by the within the AAAS General Meeting.

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 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
Science Scientists Sea level rise United States of America

September 13, 1984 – unsettling Seattle workshop on sea level rise

Forty years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1984

Glaciers, ice sheets and sea level : effect of a CO2-induced climatic change : report of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, September 13-15, 1984

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now, CO2 build-up and its close cousin sea level rise were well embedded in environmental science in the United States. The EPA, the year before, had produced a big fat report. And this workshop, I guess it’s a continuation of that. 

What we learn is that our scientists have been warning us about sea level rise with graphs and numbers since the early 1980s. And without necessarily all those graphs and numbers since the 1950s. 

What happened next, scientists kept sciencing and the rapid increase in temperature and warmth of the planet led in 1988 to James Hansen giving his famous testimony to the Senate committee in June 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: 

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
Science

August 13,1991 – clouds and silver linings

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, August 13th, 1991, we had our heads in the clouds.

Symposium on Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions. August 13-20, 1991, convened by the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, at the XX General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in Vienna.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists were looking at clouds because clouds matter. And you know, water vapour is a potent, albeit extremely short lived greenhouse gas. And this is in the context of the denialists launching their “It’s all water vapour” nonsense. 

What we learn is that there are always scientists saying “it could be x, it could be way it could be z.” And you know, sometimes they’re right. But sometimes it’s just ABC. 

What happened next? In 1992, we got the climate treaty. Which was piss weak thanks to Uncle Sam. 

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: 

August 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists